The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that remand of matter on non-imposition of Penalty serves sufficient chance to put forward documents and evidence afresh.
On examination based on the Intelligence report, it was found that a container was loaded with red sander wooden logs. After investigation, Show Cause Notice was issued to various persons including the appellant, M/s. Penanshin Shipping India Pvt. Ltd.
The original authority vide Order in Original dated 31.5.2019 ordered for confiscation of the red sander logs and sawdust totalling to 11,750 MTs valued at Rs.5,28,75,000/- and refrained from confiscation of the container and imposing a penalty on the appellant.
The department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) raising the ground that the appellant has abetted the act of smuggling red sanders and by their act of omission/commission has rendered themselves liable for penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the modification of the Order in Original to the extent of non-imposition of penalty under sec. 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
On behalf of the appellant, Dr R. Sunita Sundar appeared and argued that the appellant had filed detailed cross-objections to the appeal filed by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered any new documents or even existing documents before remanding the matter to consider non-imposition of penalty.
Further stated that the Show Cause Notice was issued only to the appellant (freight forwarder), CHA and the CFS where those persons who were the actual parties in the attempt to smuggle, have been not made a party to the proceedings and they have not been issued any notice.
Shri M. Ambe, counsel appeared for the respondent supported the findings in the impugned order and argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has only remanded the matter to look into the non-imposition of penalty. The appellant would be getting a further chance to argue the matter on all points.
On perusal of the impugned order, A Coram consisting of single member Ms Sulekha Beevi C.S viewed the Commissioner (Appeals) had only remanded the matter to relook into the non-imposition of the penalty and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
