2015 (8) TMI 1171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urali For the Respondents : Mr. T V Suresh Kumar - R1 JUDGMENT (Delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal dated 12.09.2008 made in Final Order No.995 of 2008 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cise, Pune v. S.K.F. India Ltd. [2009 (239) ELT 385] and Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors [(2008) 306 ITR 277] . It is not a case on hand. It is a case of penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Hence, the question of law is re-framed as follows: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act." 3. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent herein had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent pursued the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the first respondent and allowed the appeal holding as follows: "Heard both sides. 2. The finding against the appellant is that he failed to know the exp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the role of other parties to the order, I hold that there is no evidence for imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act." 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Department is before this Court. 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed before this ....