VIKRAM JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal of Shri Vikram Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Texworth International, challenges the penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs imposed on him under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs vide Order -in -Original No. 35/2000 dated 6 -9 -2000. This Bench vide Final Order No. 624/2006 dated 13 -2 -2006 [2006 (205) E.L.T. 738 (Tri. - Bang.)] set aside the Order -in -Original with consequential relief to the appellant. Against the Tribunals order, the Department filed an appeal (CSTA No. 35/2006) in the High Court of Karnataka and the Honble High Court vide judgment dated 19 -3 -2010 [2010 (255) E.L.T. 39 (Kar.)] remanded the matter to the Tribunal without answering the question of law raised by the Department. Para -4 of the Honble High Courts judgment is reproduced below :

(2.) WHEN the matter subsequently came up before this Bench, the counsel for the appellant submitted that they wanted to move the Honble High Court for clarification of its remand order, for which purpose hearing on the appeal stood adjourned from time to time. Ultimately, on 5 -3 -2012, the learned counsel for the appellant informed the Bench that they would not pursue the matter before the Honble High Court and both sides reached a consensus for agitating the penalty -related issue before us. Accordingly, final hearing was held on 9 -4 -2012.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Act was beyond the scope of the show -cause notice wherein the specific proposal was to impose a penalty on the appellant under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Act. Even though Section 114 of the Act was also cited in para 30 of the show -cause notice, no grounds whatsoever was alleged therein for invoking the said Section of the Act against the appellant. It was further submitted that, for a penalty to be imposed on a person under Section 114 of the Act, he should be found to have, by some commission or omission, rendered any export goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Act. In the present case, there was not even an allegation in the show -cause notice that any export goods were liable to confiscation and the appellant rendered it so liable. In the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Act was only liable to be set aside.