LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-224

MEHTA FINE ARTS Vs. CESTAT

Decided On September 02, 2015
Mehta Fine Arts Appellant
V/S
CESTAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE premises of the appellant firm was inspected by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, during which it was found that out of 18 second -hand printing machines imported vide different Bills of Entry, for a value of Rs. 40,16,557/ - (CIF), only two machines were found available in the premises. Hence show cause notice was issued to the appellant to explain as to why confiscation of goods should not be made and penalty should not be imposed, for violation of EXIM Policy, as per the provisions of Customs Act. After considering the explanation submitted by the appellant, the adjudicating authority, namely the 3rd respondent herein, passed the following order, on 8 -5 -2000.

(2.) I impose the penalty of Rs. 1.5 (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) on M/s. Mehta Fine Arts, Sivakasi under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962"

(3.) THERE is no bar on the adjudicating authority, in a de novo proceedings, to determine the quantum of fine or penalty. The fine and penalty imposed has been set aside and the matter is live for re -adjudication. Hence earlier order imposing fine or penalty does not have any relevance. The adjudicating authority, at its discretion, may impose appropriate fine or penalty. It does not matter whether the proceedings have been initiated afresh or heard by way of de novo proceedings on the orders of the Tribunal. Question of challenging enhancement of penalty does not arise in a case of this nature, where the adjudication order itself has been set aside in its entirety and the matter remanded back to the original authority for re -adjudication, namely de novo enquiry. We find no provision of law that bars the adjudicating authority from imposing fine or penalty as he may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue. The civil miscellaneous appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.