Penalty set aside for first appellant, appeal allowed with relief; Second appellant's appeal rejected for improper export attempt. The penalty imposed on the first appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. However, the appeal filed by the second ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Penalty set aside for first appellant, appeal allowed with relief; Second appellant's appeal rejected for improper export attempt.
The penalty imposed on the first appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. However, the appeal filed by the second appellant was rejected as he was involved in attempting to export goods improperly.
Issues: Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 on two appellants arising from a common order.
Analysis: The appeals were filed against the penalty imposed on two appellants under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for de-novo proceedings. The main appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order. The first appellant, Shri Narayanan Nair Ajay Kumar, denied the allegations and informed the customs officer about damaged goods in the consignment. The Adjudicating authority imposed the penalty based on the statement recorded during investigation and the seizure of goods. The Adjudicating authority did not dispute the submissions made by the first appellant in the earlier Adjudication order.
The Tribunal observed that the case of the first appellant was not properly discussed and remanded it for de-novo adjudication. The Adjudicating authority, in the de-novo proceedings, relied on a statement from 1999. The Revenue contended that the main appellant attempted to export goods improperly by mis-declaring them. The Tribunal found no basis to impose a penalty on the first appellant as he had informed the customs officers about the damaged goods. However, the penalty on the second appellant, Shri Harjit Singh Grewal, was upheld as he was involved in attempting to export goods improperly, as evidenced by the dismissal of the main appellant's appeal.
In conclusion, the penalty imposed on the first appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. On the other hand, the appeal filed by the second appellant was rejected.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
