Penalty under Customs law rejected where materially identical facts had already been found insufficient for penal action

Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was held unwarranted against the supporting manufacturer and the 100% EOU because the facts were materially identical to an earlier final Tribunal decision under the same export-scheme framework. The Tribunal applied the earlier ratio and found no breach of the scheme conditions attracting penal consequences on the record before it. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the impugned order was upheld to the extent it declined penalties against the two entities.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed on the supporting manufacturer and the 100% EOU when the facts were materially similar to an earlier Tribunal decision applying the same export-scheme framework.

Analysis: The appeal arose only against the omission to impose penalties on M/s. Kalpena Industries Ltd. and M/s. Tara Holding Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found the factual matrix to be broadly identical to an earlier final order of the same Bench dealing with the same scheme structure and the same kind of allegations. On that basis, it applied the earlier ratio and held that no case was made out for penal action under Section 112(a) against the two entities. The impugned order was therefore found free from infirmity to the extent challenged.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not warranted against M/s. Kalpena Industries Ltd. and M/s. Tara Holding Pvt. Ltd., and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier final decision on materially identical facts has held that the scheme conditions were not breached in a manner attracting penal consequences, penalty under Section 112(a) cannot be sustained merely on the Revenue's repeated challenge to the same factual foundation.

---