TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal has passed order dated 14.05.2018 whereby the bench has set aside the confiscation of SONY TV SETS and SONY PENALS and also set aside the enhancements of assessment value. According to which the said goods should be released by the department. However, the respondent Commissioner is insisting for bond and execution of bank guarantee for release of said goods. He further submits that against the same impugned order the Revenue had also has filed appeal bearing No. C/10537/2018-DB seeking imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The said appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal Vide Order No. A/11223/2018 dated 20.06.2018. After, disposal of both assessee's appeal as well as Revenue appeal, the confiscation of g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on behalf of the Revenue submits that the department is preparing to file appeal against the Tribunal's is order. Thereforer the respondent Commissioner has sought a bank guarantee to safeguard the Revenue. He submitted the reply from the respondent Commissioner, wherein, he pointed out that the department has processed to file appeal before the Apex Court. Therefore, the assessees were requested to submit the provisional duty bond equivalent to difference in assessable value and bank guarantee of differential duty and re-determined value and protect the Government Revenue. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the Tribunal Vide its order dated 14.05.2018 allowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi was not imposed only on the ground of report of standing committee on finance nut also on the ground that a separate penalty cannot be imposed on the proprietors when penalty on the proprietorship concern has been imposed. This very important finding was not challenged by the revenue in the present appeal. Moreover it is a settled law that a separate penalty cannot be imposed on the proprietor when the penalty on proprietorship firm has been imposed. Therefore, the penalty under section 114AA cannot be imposed on Shri Vimal Shah, proprietor of Raj Trader and Shri Anmol Sethi, proprietor of Ideal Impex also on this ground." "9. As per our above discussion the Revenue appeal is dismissed. The early hearing application also stands ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scation. 9. As regard, Revenue's proposal for filling appeal before the Supreme Court, merely filling of the appeal cannot automatically stay the operation of the order of this Tribunal. The order of this Trinunal is binding on the departmental authority as held by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Kamlakshi finance corporation Ltd 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC) (Supra). Wherein Apex Court held as under- "7. The impression or anxiety of the Assistant Collector that, if he accepted the assessee's contention, the department would lose. revenue and would also have no remedy to have the matter rectified is also incorrect. Section 35E confers adequate powers on the department in this regard. Under sub-section (1), where the Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se some prejudice to the Revenue but the remedy is also in the hands of the same officer. He has only to bring the matter to the notice of the Board or the Collector so as to enable appropriate proceedings being taken under S. 35E(1) or (2) to keep the interests of the department alive. If the officer's view is the correct one, it will no doubt be finally upheld and the Revenue will get the duty, though after some delay which such procedure would entail." "8. We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. It is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and ap....