RAJESH KUMAR Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) [2005 (187) E.L.T. 397 (Tri. - Del.)] and shall stand disposed of by this common order. On receipt of a certain information about clearance without payment of duty of two dutiable parcels addressed to M/s. Abhishek Electronics, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) visited the General Post Office on 11th October, 2002 and located the said two parcels in presence of two independent witnesses including Sh. O.P. Sharma Deputy Chief Post Master, GPO. Detailed examination of the parcels revealed that the description of the items and quantities was not available on the consignment note affixed on the packages, although, value of the parcels was declared in terms of Singapore dollar on the invoices pasted on the same. The invoices showed that the parcels contained 500 pieces of computer chips, which were inspected by the authorities for verification and eventually seized by the DRI Officers under proper panchnama drawn on the spot. The DRI officers then visited the Speed Post Centre at Bhai Veer Singh Marg, New Delhi and identified eight packages under different numbers for examination which revealed that the said parcels were also addressed to Abhishek Electronics. These packages were also opened and the details of their contents noted, including the discrepancies in the description of the items and the quantity, etc. Statements of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Customs Inspector, Sh. Kishori Lal, Supervisor of LMA Sec. in Foreign Post Office were also recorded from which transpired that the clearance of the parcels was without payment of duty for illegal consideration received by Sh. Kishori Lal from the importer. Having thus collected the relevant material, show cause notices were issued to the importer, namely, Sh. Atul Malhotra, proprietor of Abhishek Electronics, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, posted as Inspector (Customs) in the Speed Post Centre, Sh. Kishori Lal, posted as Supervisor in Foreign Post Office and Sh. Vishnu Kumar, an employee of the Speed Post Centre. Upon receipt of the responses and consideration thereof, Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Air Cargo, New Delhi, the adjudicating authority passed an order on 28th November, 2003, whereby he confiscated the packages in question but allowed redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs by the importer, M/s. Abhishek Electronics. The adjudicating authority further directed the value of the imported computer parts to be redetermined and recovery of the duty amount payable on the same. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also levied on Sh. Atul Malhotra, proprietor of M/s. Abhishek Electronics, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on Sh. Kishori Lal and a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - on Sh. Rajesh Kumar. The penalty imposed on Sh. Vishnu Kumar, employee of the Speed Post Centre was, however, restricted to Rs. 10,000/ - only.

(2.) Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which have been disposed of by the said Tribunal in terms of the common order impugned in the present writ petition. A reading of the said order shows that so far as confiscation and enhancement of the value of the imported consignment of computer parts is concerned, M/s. Abhishek Electronics did not challenge the order of the adjudicating authority and simply pleaded for leniency in the matter of fine and penalty. The Tribunal has taking into consideration the fact that the differential duty amount was limited to Rs. 46,560/ - and Rs. 1,38,772/ - only reduced the fine amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/ - and Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The penalty levied on Sh. Atul Malhotra was also reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. Insofar as the penalty levied upon Sh. Kishori Lal is concerned, the Tribunal reduced the same to Rs. 25,000/ -. Similarly, penalty levied upon Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Inspector was reduced to Rs. 15,000/ -, while that levied on Sh. Vishnu Kumar was set aside in toto. The appeals were with those modifications disposed of granting partial relief to the appellants. The present appeal, as noticed earlier, have been filed to assail the correctness of the above order.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.