2017 (4) TMI 1411 - HC - Customs

Tribunal quashes charge-sheet, upholds decision, dismisses petitions, affirms consistency in legal proceedings.

The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the charge-sheet against the respondents after the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal found ... Charge-sheet filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of separate Original Applications - inaccurate physical verification of goods - exaggerated valuation with regard to the market value of the export goods - attempt to export inferior variety of carpets with ulterior motives - Held that:- There is no difference in the charges levelled in the charge-sheet and those covered in the Adjudicating Order and the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Further we have also perused the order passed by the CAT, Principal Bench. We find that there also the Department and Adjudication Authority had found that the Officers of the Department were not at fault and they were not punished, and accordingly the disciplinary proceedings on the same set of charges was quashed. The Apex Court had declined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and that by the Delhi High Court. The Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order may not have dealt the matter in detail but the net result would be same. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Challenge to charge-sheet before Central Administrative Tribunal.2. Adjudication proceedings and penalty imposition.3. Appeals before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.4. Quashing of penalty and Adjudication Order by Appellate Tribunal.5. Jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal and drawback issue.6. Comparison of charges in charge-sheet, Adjudication Order, and Appellate Tribunal's order.7. Precedents and orders of CAT, Delhi High Court, and Apex Court.8. Examination of charge-sheet, Adjudicating Authority's order, and Appellate Tribunal's order.9. Review of CAT's order and decision not to interfere.10. Conclusion and dismissal of petitions.Detailed Analysis:1. The respondent challenged the charge-sheet before the Central Administrative Tribunal through separate Original Applications, contesting charges related to inaccurate physical verification of goods, exaggerated valuation of export goods, and attempting to export inferior carpets. The Tribunal stayed the enquiry proceedings during the case.2. Adjudication proceedings took place while the case was pending before the Tribunal, resulting in a penalty of &8377;1,00,000 each on the two respondents. They appealed to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which quashed the penalties and found all charges unsustainable, remanding the drawback issue for reevaluation based on actual export and foreign exchange.3. The Appellate Tribunal's decision was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which agreed that since the charges were deemed unsustainable, the charge-sheet should be quashed. The Tribunal directed a timely resolution of the drawback matter.4. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision on penalties and Adjudication Order should not impact the disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the distinct nature of both processes. They also contended that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by addressing the drawback issue.5. The respondents maintained that the charges in the charge-sheet aligned with the Adjudication Order and the Appellate Tribunal's decision, rendering further enquiry unnecessary as the Department was already represented and heard during the Tribunal proceedings.6. Reference was made to a previous order of the CAT, Delhi High Court, and the Apex Court, where disciplinary proceedings were quashed based on similar findings, supporting the respondents' stance.7. Upon reviewing the charge-sheet, Adjudicating Authority's order, Appellate Tribunal's decision, and the CAT's order, the Court found consistency in the charges and outcomes. Previous cases also supported the quashing of disciplinary proceedings on similar grounds.8. The Court affirmed that the charges and decisions across different tribunals were aligned, leading to the dismissal of the petitions challenging the Tribunal's order.9. Despite minor discrepancies in the CAT's order, the Court upheld the decision, noting no substantial reason to interfere. The directive regarding the drawback issue was deemed unnecessary but not prejudicial to the Department.10. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit for intervention based on the thorough examination of the legal proceedings and outcomes.