M/S. Saini Consultant vs C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana
- CitationAppeal No. C/55966/2014-CU(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the principal importer has had its case settled by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, a co-noticee against whom penalty is imposed under Section 112 of the Act cannot be subjected to a greater consequence than the principal importer; penalty on the co-noticee is therefore not imposable where the settlement order has granted immunity to the principal importer, following the decision of the Tribunal in S.K. Colombowala v. CC, Mumbai.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. ASR-CUSTM-PVRV-APP-187-14-15 dated 24.09.2014 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Saini Consultant .Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.S. Saini, Consultant for the Appellants
Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 15.04.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 51424/2015-CU(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962.
2. The appellant appeared in person and submits that the main party M/s. Regent Strips Pvt. Ltd. has gone to the Settlement Commission and settled their case thereon. Therefore, penalty on the appellant is not imposable. Further, he submits that the appellant have no knowledge that the importer has fraudulently procured DEBP license. Therefore, penalty is not imposable.
3. Considered submission by the appellant. I find that the main importer is gone to the settlement commission and the Settlement Commission vide Final Order No. F-994-Cus/11-SB(PB) dated 07.09.2011 have settled the case under section 127 (C)(5) of the Customs Act.
4. I further find that in case of SK Colombowala Vs. CC, Mumbai-2007 (220) ELT 492 (Tri-Mumbai) it was has held that the judgment where the main accuse settled the dispute before the Settlement Commissioner and penalty on the co-accused was set aside on the ground that where the Settlement Commissioner has granted immunity to the main accuse from levy of penalty, co-accused cannot be vested in high consequences than the main accuse and set aside the imposition of penalty. The said matter was referred to 3rd member who pointed that the case against all co-noticees comes to an end whereas order of settlement is passed in respect of the person entitled to file an application before the Settlement M/s. Regent Strips Pvt. Ltd. have settled their matter with the Settlement Commission. Therefore, following the decision of SK Colombowala (Supra) the penalty on the appellant is not imposable.
5. With these terms appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
C/55966/2014-CU(SM)
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