Commissioner Of Customs-Kandla vs Shri Pranav Adani
- CitationAppeal No. : C/237/2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Revenue's appeal against the non-imposition of penalty on the respondent cannot be sustained where the adjudication order on which the penalty question depended has already been set aside by the Tribunal in an earlier final order; the appeal against the penalty aspect therefore falls with the underlying order and is rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIO-KDL/COMMR/19/2007 dtd 29.3.2007 Passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-KANDLA ]
Commissioner of CUSTOMS-KANDLA - Appellant(s)
Vs
Shri Pranav Adani - Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri H Modh, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 20/4/2015
ORDER No. A/10670 / 2015 dated 20/4/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order in so far the Adjudicating Authority had not imposed any penalty against Shri Pranav Adani, Executive Director of the M/s Adani Wilmar Ltd (Respondent herein). The Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the Tribunal vide Final Order No A/897-898/WZB/AHD/2008, M/1370-1371/WZB/AHD/2007 dtd 8.5.2008 as reported in 2008.231.ELT.545 (Tri Ahmd) - Adani Wilmar Ltd vs CC, Kandla, set aside the adjudication order. The Learned Authorised representative for the Revenue submits that they filed the appeal against the said order before the Honble Supreme Court. We find that the impugned order is set aside by the Tribunal. In view of that the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free