Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs M/S. Radiant Impex

[Arising out of Order-in- Original No. 3/2005-AP. COMMISSIONER dtd. 20/5/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Goa]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes authorities?

=======================================================

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, ICE House, Goa :

Appellants

VS

M/s. Radiant Impex :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri. S.J. Sahu, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants None for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 7/7/2015 Date of decision: 7/7/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.S. Pruthi

This appeal arises out of order-in-original dated 20/5/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Goa. Grounds of appeal are set out below:

a) The Commissioner failed in specifying the name of the firm or person on whom he intended to impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

b) The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa erred in imposing penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 despite imposing penalty under Section 114A of the Act.

c) The Commissioner also erred in imposing penalty in the lieu of Redemption fine.

2(a). We find that there is only one noticee to whom the show cause notice was issued and adjudication order also has been passed in respect of same noticee i.e. M/s. Star Audio. Revenue has not shown that more than one person/company is involved in the imported goods, therefore it is clear that penalty has been imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act on the noticee, M/s. Star Audio therefore appeal is rejected on this count.

2(b). Second ground of appeal is correct because Section 114A proviso clearly provides that if penalty has been imposed under Section 114A then no penalty is imposable under Section 112 or 114. Appeal is accepted on this issue.

2(c). As regard the third ground of the appeal, we agree with Ld. Counsel that as the goods are not available for the confiscation the question of penalty in lieu of redemption fine does not arise. Appeal on this ground is also accepted.

3. The respondent is not present. However our order does not cause any prejudice to him.

4. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that penalty is not imposable under Section 112 and penalty in lieu of redemption fine is also not imposable. (Dictated in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) P.S. Pruthi Member (Technical)

sk

3