M/S. Sesa Goa Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Goa on 29 September, 2010
In the case of CCE vs. Samudram 1997 (95) ELT 33 (Mad) the Honble High Court of Madras found that no specific finding has been recorded exonerating the respondent alone out of the total number of 8 persons to whom the notice of adjudication proceedings has been issued. This would go to inevitably discloses that the omission to advert to the name of the respondent or the omission to make reference to the respondent at the stage of recording a findings of guilt and imposing penalty ought to have been only due to accidental slip or omission. In this case the goods were seized from the house of the respondent during search and the respondent played key role in the offence and by mistake the penalty could not be imposed in the final order and the Honble High Court of Madras held that this defect is curable under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. In fact, this case law supports the appellants case.