LAWS(CA)-2008-11-14

SH. J.P. SINGH S/O SH. JAI DEO SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,

Decided On November 19, 2008
Sh. J.P. Singh S/O Sh. Jai Deo Singh Appellant
V/S
Union Of India (Uoi) Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Central Board Of Excise And Customs, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Applicant is assailing the memorandum number 27/2006 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, enclosing four Articles of Charge, issued on 19.05.2006 to him. Challenge is also made to the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission dated 27.07.2005, advising the second Respondent to proceed against the Applicant for regular departmental action for major penalty (Annex A -1, colly.).

(2.) THE facts as gleaned from record would show that the Applicant is an officer of the 1992 batch of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) of Customs and Central Excise Service. During the relevant period, the Applicant was an Assistant Commissioner and then promoted as Joint Commissioner on 25.09.2002. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai initiated some investigations against five companies namely M/s R.S. & Company, M/s Stitch & Style, M/s Himgiri Overseas, M/s Deepshikha Overseas and M/s Saharanpur Handicraft, New Delhi for fraudulent exports and making fraudulent claims of drawbacks. On the basis of these investigations, the DRI issued show cause notice dated 3.12.1999 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 for imposing penalty under Sections 114(i), 114(ii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was, inter alia, alleged that the Applicant had entered into a conspiracy with one Rajesh Bhasin for carrying out fraudulent exports by wrongly declaring the old and used clothes as readymade garments under claim of drawback. The Applicant was also placed under suspension on 7.03.2000, which was revoked in March, 2001. The Applicant replied to the show cause notice and made his written submission on 15.10.2001. The representation of the Applicant did not find favour with the Respondents and a fine of Rs. two lakhs was imposed on him vide order 19.08.2003. The Applicant challenged this order before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT), which stayed the penalty by its order dated 29.10.2003 and allowed the appeal by its order 21.11.2005, quashing the order imposing penalty on the Applicant. The Respondents did not challenge this order before any higher forum. On 19.05.2006, the impugned memorandum was served on the Applicant. The Applicant submitted his reply dated 1.09.2006. The Respondents did not take any action for one -and -a -half years. The Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed only on 4.03.2008, six months after filing of the instant OA.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Applicant has taken us through the show cause notice, order under the Customs Act and the order of the CESTAT. The statements of the Applicant and other persons quoted in the show cause notice of 3.12.1999 are favourable to the Applicant and do not prove the charge against him, which basically is that he is the benami owner of the five firms, mentioned in paragraph 2 above. Paragraph 114 of the show cause notice is reproduced below: