TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal bars double jeopardy in tax case, rejects Collector's appeal, upholds penalties</h1> The Tribunal held that initiating separate proceedings against the respondents for the same transaction after an earlier order of adjudication was ... Seizure of gold ornaments Issues:1. Whether separate proceedings can be initiated against the respondents for the same transaction after an earlier order of adjudication.2. Whether the subsequent proceedings by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, are permissible under law.3. Whether the plea of the learned S.D.R. regarding the subsequent proceeding is valid.Analysis:1. The appeals were filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The case involved M/s. Lakshmi Jewellery and an employee, Kamalchand, who was intercepted with gold ornaments intended for sale. The Collector of Central Excise imposed fines and penalties on the respondents. The Tribunal confirmed the findings but modified the penalties. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, initiated separate proceedings resulting in penalties on the respondents. The issue was whether initiating further proceedings for the same transaction was permissible.2. The S.D.R. argued that the subsequent proceedings were justified as the earlier adjudication did not consider the unauthorized sale of 119.600 gms. of gold ornaments by Kamalchand. However, the Consultant for the Respondents contended that double jeopardy would apply if action was taken again for the same transaction. The Tribunal examined the Show Cause Notice and found that the subsequent proceedings were unjustified as they pertained to the same transaction already adjudicated upon.3. The Tribunal rejected the S.D.R.'s plea, emphasizing that the proceedings were penal in nature and had reached finality with the earlier order of adjudication. The Assistant Collector's actions were deemed erroneous as they failed to recognize that the respondents had already been penalized for the contravention. Initiating further proceedings would constitute double jeopardy and violate principles of fair play and justice. The Tribunal upheld that there was no merit in the appeals and rejected them accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
