Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Mohd Barak Ali on 15 April, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No . 20516-20518 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: C/131/2009-SM, C/141/2009-SM, C/142/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/08 dated 31/10/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 34 to 37/08 (H-II)(D) Cus dated 31/10/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II) Hyderabad] Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - HYDERABAD-II L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH 500004 Appellant(s) Versus MOHD BARAK ALI, APPOLO CAPITAL CAMPUS, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD Respondent(s)
EA MOBILE INDIA (P) LTD 7TH FLOOR, VEGA BUILDING, PLOT NO.7, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD Respondent(s) Appearance:
Mr. R. Gurunathan, A.R. For the Appellant None For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 15/04/2014 Date of Decision: 15/04/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Even though Revenue is challenging different orders against different appellants, the issue involved in all the cases is same and therefore all the appeals are taken up together and a common order is being passed.
2. In this case, Revenue is contesting the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act 1962 and it is the contention of the Revenue that penalty should have been imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962 since the goods are liable to confiscation. The issue involved is that the respondents did not have Importer-Exporter Code Number as required and provided under Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992.
3. On going through the records, I find that nowhere the value of the goods involved in import/export has been indicated and in the absence of any value indicated and in the absence of any quantum of duty involved; quantum of penalty that can be imposed under Section 112 can not be arrived at. Therefore, the dispute raised by the Revenue on penalty imposed on the respondents cannot be resolved at all in the absence of this vital information. I find that in a similar case in the case of one of the appellants herein namely M/s EA Mobile India (Pvt) Ltd., this Tribunal in Final Order No. 26919/2013 dated 05.11.2013 had taken a similar view. Under these circumstances, all the appeals filed by the Revenue have no merits and are rejected.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER pnr....
2