2000 (5) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... present case, the import was made by Shri Ram Kirpal, Proprietor, Sunder Brij Ayurvedic Pharmacy. Shri Sanjay Kapoor was only a co-accused in the offence. The penalty imposed on the importer, viz. Shri Ram Kirpal was only Rs. 1,000/- while a penalty of Rs. 7 lacs has been imposed on the co-accused, Shri Sanjay Kapoor. The learned Counsel submitted that such disproportionate penalties cannot be imposed on conspirators in the same case and who are equally guilty in the offence. He, therefore, submitted that the penalty imposed on Shri Sanjay Kapoor is arbitrary and is required to be reduced. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1647 (S.C.) = AIR....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or of Central Excise & Customs v. Rajagopala Prabhu [1986 ILR Kerala Page 392 onwards] and some other decisions. He also referred us to Tribunal's decision in Final Order No. 2581-2585/97, dated 18-9-1997 in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirapalli v. M/s. Chikku International & Ors. 2. Opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, learned DR submitted that the order impugned in the present appeal had been passed by the Commissioner pursuant to our Final Order No. 96-97/97-A, dated 24-1-1997. The learned DR submitted that in Para 14, the Tribunal had confirmed the penalty imposed on Shri Ram Kirpal and had ordered the requantification of the penalty imposed on Shri Sanjay Kapoor. He, therefore, submitted that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tified in the first adjudication order of the Commissioner and the gravity of the offence varied vastly between the two accused. The learned DR submitted that such variation was the reason for the Tribunal upholding the variation in the two penalties. He, therefore, submitted that the observations contained in the order of the Supreme Court reported in 1981 SUPREME COURT 1196 did not apply to the present case. The responsibility of the two co-accused for the offence was very different. They were not equally guilty persons. Therefore, variation in penalty is fully justified. 3. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. As has been correctly contended by the DR, the remand order of the Tribuna....