TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (10) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... J.D.R., for the Respondent. ORDER These two appeals arise out of and are directed against the order bearing No. S/14-4-17/82, dated 20-9-1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay, by which he ordered absolute confiscation of the goods seized from the residence of the appellants and imposed a personal penalty of ₹ 20,000/- on each of them. 2. As these two app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated in her statement that they were selling the goods and that she was selling the goods only during the absence of her husband. By reason of these admissions the Additional Collector came to pass the impugned order. In these two appeals the appellants did not challenge the confiscation of the goods. They only contended that the imposition of penalty of ₹ 20,000/- on each of them is highly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sive. 6. The short point for our consideration is whether the imposition of penalty on the appellants by the Additional Collector requires to be interfered with. From the order of the Additional Collector it is seen that he had taken into consideration the previous involvements and the penalties imposed on the appellants for the alleged smuggling activities. He however has not set out the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Collector was not justified in imposing the same amount of penalty on both the appellants. He should have considered the part played by each of the appellants. He adopted a common yardstick which in the circumstances of the case was not correct. In the matter of imposition of penalty the gravity of the offence and the extent of participation on the commission of the offence assumes importance. F....