2007 (11) TMI 486 - AT - Customs

Appellant's Personal Penalty Appeal Revived by High Court Intervention

The appellant was initially held liable for a personal penalty on confiscated silver items, with subsequent dismissals of appeals by lower authorities due ... Appeal to Appellate Tribunal Issues:- Imposition of personal penalty on silver bar and silver chorsas- Dismissal of appeal on the ground of time-bar- Restoration of appeal by the High Court- Tribunal's authority to consider merits of the caseImposition of personal penalty on silver bar and silver chorsas:The appellant was held liable for personal penalty on confiscated silver items. The adjudication order was passed in 1990. The appeal to the first appellate authority was dismissed as time-barred after 9 years and 2 months. Subsequently, the Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. The appellant then approached the High Court, which directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal strictly in accordance with the law. The High Court found no negligence on the appellant's part due to wrong advice from their advocate.Dismissal of appeal on the ground of time-bar:The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, leading to subsequent dismissals by the Tribunal. However, the High Court, considering the circumstances and lack of negligence on the appellant's part, directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on its merits.Restoration of appeal by the High Court:The High Court, in a writ petition, directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal based on the appellant's claim of being misled by their advocate. The High Court found no negligence on the appellant's part and directed the Tribunal to proceed with the appeal.Tribunal's authority to consider merits of the case:The Tribunal was directed by the High Court to hear the appeal strictly in accordance with the law. However, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed a speaking order on merits, the Tribunal could not consider the merits of the case. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court, which stated that if the lower authority had not decided on merits, the Tribunal should not do so either. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear and decide the appeal on merits within three weeks.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of personal penalty imposition, time-bar dismissal, High Court's restoration of the appeal, and the Tribunal's authority to consider the merits of the case based on legal precedents and directions from higher courts.