TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms is the appellant and Mr C Madhavan is the respondent. The appellant being aggrieved by the Final Order No.22982/2017 dated 08.12.2017 in Appeal No.C/21692/2015 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, has filed the instant appeal. 2.1 The appeal filed by the appellant before the CESTAT was dismissed through the order impugned in the appeal and for appreciating the rival contentions we find it useful to excerpt the operative portion of the order the CESTAT which reads as follows: "3. We find that the total revenue involved in this case is less than Rs. 10 lakhs. This falls within the monetary limits prescribed by Revenue by Circular F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dt. 17/12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....van and Dr. Anil Kumar (i) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5, 00, 00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Only), o Shri. T.K.Faiz, under sections 112 (a) and (b) for his role in the smuggling of the total of 56 kilograms of gold. (ii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore Only) on Shri. Ashraf Kallungal, under sections 112 (a) and (b) for his role in the smuggling of the total of 56 kilograms of gold. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only), on Shri. Subair Kallungal, under section 112 (b) of the Customs Act 1962 (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Only), on Shri. Abdulla KoithanKandy, under section 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act 1962 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms by Section 112 of the Act, then, the window opened for imposition of penalty, even if accepted as per the plain language of the Section, could be as much as Rs. 16,76,93,517/-. Not that such a penalty should be imposed, in the case of hand, however, refusing to entertain the appeal when the larger question canvassed by the Department is: Whether the Commissioner is right in law in not imposing any penalty at all on Officers - C. Madhavan and Anil Kumar. Therefore, the fiscal limit referred in the Circulars has no application. If at all fiscal limits are to be taken into consideration, the case comes within the limits stipulated by all the Circulars issued from time to time. It is further brought to our notice that the appeal filed agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within the purview of this Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. "(1) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the revenue involved in this case is less than Rs. 10 lakhs on the ground that no penalty has been imposed on the respondent, whereas per Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 the penalty that could be imposed is an amount not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods i.e. Rs. 16,76,93,517/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Seventy six lakhs ninety three thousand five hundred and seventeen Only). (2) Whether, the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the appeal filed by the department was for non-imposition of penalty' and that, if the appeal is allowed the respondent was liable to be imposed with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y question, namely, whether the Commissioner has properly and correctly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him by Section 112 of the Act. First question that may come out for consideration before the Tribunal is not whether the penalty imposed on a particular individual is justified etc., but, the question is whether the non-imposition of penalty on respondent is tenable and in accordance with law. In the particular circumstances of the case, the question for decision before the Tribunal is: Whether refraining from imposition of penalty is valid and legal? The question is de hors fiscal limits and pure question of law. The fiscal limits, unlike routine matters taken up by Tribunal, is not present in the case on hand. Therefore, by referri....