Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Vipul Pranlal Doshi vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 6 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Application No. C/S/92017- 92018/2014-Mum. In Appeal No. C/85008-85009/2014-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 1036(Adj.-Imp.)/2013(JNCH)/IMP -804 dt. 24.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, JNCH, Nhava Sheva ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K.Jain, Member (Technical) ============================================================
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. Vipul Pranlal Doshi :
Appellant Balaji Shipping Agency VS Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva :
Respondent Appearance Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for Appellant Shri K.S. Mishra, Additional Commissioner (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President
Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 06/05/2014
Date of decision : 06/05/2014
ORDER NO.
Per : S.S. Kang
Heard both sides.
2. Common issue is involved, therefore the applications are being taken up together. Applicant M/s. Balaji Shipping Agency filed application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- and Shri Vipul P. Doshi filed application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. The applicant submitted that the importer made import of total 97 consignments and M/s. Balaji Shipping Agency only concerned with 4 consignments whereas Shri Vipul Doshi is concerned 4 consignments. Adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- on M/s. Balaji Shipping Agency though he dealt with the 4 consignment and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on Shri Vipul Doshi though he concerned with 24 consignments. The bulk of the consignments were dealt with M/s. S.K. Kanjilal and only a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed on M/s. S.K. Kanjilal. The applicant also submitted that there is no finding against the applicant in the adjudication order. The adjudicating authority only held that the applicants abetted in the act of the importer who misdeclared the goods in respect of valuation and also by misusing IEC Code. Hence, the penalties are not sustainable.
4. Revenue relied upon the findings of the lower authority.
5. We find that appellant filed appeals against the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of dues. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit an amount equal to 50% of the penalties for hearing of the appeals. Applicant failed to comply with the conditions of the stay order. Hence, the appeals are dismissed for non- compliance.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the applicant Shri Vipul Doshi to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- and M/s. Balaji Shipping is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- for hearing of the appeals. On deposit the above mentioned amount, the pre-deposit the remaining amount of penalties are waived for hearing of the appeal.
7. As noted above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits, therefore the impugned orders are set aside and matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits, on showing the deposit of the above mentioned amount and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand. The Appellants will appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with proof of deposit on 23.7.2014 and thereafter the appeals will decide in accordance with law.
(Dictated in court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President Sm ??
??
??
??
2