Shri Yash Balchandra Jain vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export), ...

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV

APPEAL NO. C/85990/13

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 623/(Adudication Export) 2012 (JNCH) Exp-70 dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Nhavasheva.)

For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, 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 : Yes 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? =====================================================

Shri Yash Balchandra Jain

: Appellant Versus

Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhavasheva : Respondent

Appearance Shri Rajendra Kumar, Advocate : For Appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) : For Respondent

CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing : 24.04.2015 Date of Decision: 24.04.2015

ORDER NO.......................................................

Per: Anil Choudhary:

The appellant Shri Yash Balchandra Jain is a Director of M/s Crown Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 623/(Adudication Export) 2012 (JNCH) Exp-70 dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhavasheva MumbaiII.

2. Heard the parties.

3. The Counsel for the appellant points out that penalty have been imposed on the appellant-Director without serving any show-cause notice on him. He draws my attention to the show-cause notice dated 26/2/09 wherein the director have not been asked to show-cause, as such the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to impose penalty and as such the order imposing penalty is bad and fit to be set aside.

4. The learned A.R. relies on the impugned orders and further states that in the course of investigation the Director of the exporting company had stated that they may be requested to permit the shipment, pending decision by the Revenue, and to bind themselves to pay fine, if any and issue the show-cause notice in the matter.

5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that show-cause notice was issued on 26.02.2009, wherein the present appellantDirector have not been noticed to show-cause, but penalty is imposed under Section 114(iii) by the Order-in-Original, of Rs. 25,000/. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has been pleased to reduce the penalty from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 20,000/-. In view of the fact that no show-cause notice is served on the present appellantDirector, the penalty imposed on him is fit to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. The appellant will be entitled to consequential relief, in accordance with law. If there are no other adjudicated dues pending recovery, the Revenue shall release the bank guarantee, bond etc., in accordance with law.

(Pronounced in open Court)

(Anil Choudhary)

Member (Judicial)

Sp

3