TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Central Excise and Inspector of Central Excise posted under him. However, in the present case petitioner, being posted in a senior position as Assistant Commissioner, ought to have smelt a rat in the unusual methodology adopted by the exporter in procuring the goods meant for export at Mumbai and taking the circuitous route of carrying them to Miraj for examination by Customs Authorities. After examination, the goods were transported back to Mumbai for being exported. If the exporter weas taking such a circuitous route thereby spending extra time, energy and money for examination of goods at Miraj, petitioner ought to have been more cautious and ought to have performed his supervisory duties by either himself examining some of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a challenge to the order dated 4th August 2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty withholding of 30% of monthly pension for the period of 5 years. 3. While working as Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise petitioner was issued with memorandum of charge sheet dated 4th August 2014 alleging misconduct in respect of examination of goods of the exporter who allegedly claimed higher FOB value with a view to claim higher DEPB entitlement. In the inquiry conducted against petitioner the charges were proved. In the meantime, in proceedings initiated before the Adjudicating Authority under the provisions of Customs Act against the exporter as well as petitioner, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed upon petitioner vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner challenged the penalty order dated 4th August 2014 before the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 241 of 2015. By judgment and order dated 19th November 2019 the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, petitioner filed the present petition. 6. We have heard Mr. Manwani the learned counsel appearing for petitioner. He would take us through the charges and the evidence to demonstrate that there was no evidence available on record for punishing petitioner. He would submit that it was not petitioner s duty in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to personally examine the exported goods. He would submit that the facilities at Customs Department at JNPT were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the passed in the Adjudicating Proceedings initiated under the provisions of Customs Act cannot have any impact on the orders passed in the Disciplinary Proceedings. 8. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the rival parties. Petitioner at the relevant time was working in the capacity as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and the Customs establishment at Miraj was under his jurisdiction. True it is that being an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, petitioner was not supposed to personally examine the exported goods. He would be assisted in this regard by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Inspector of Central Excise posted under him. However, in the present case petitioner, being posted in a senior position as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00.000/- in his Order-in- Original dated 30.04.2009 on Shri N.N. Borse, AC, thus establishing the collusive conduct. 10. Thus, one of the factors taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority is the factum of imposition of penalty by the Adjudicating Authority by order dated 30th April 2009. At the time of passing of order by the Disciplinary Authority on 4th August 2014, appeal preferred by petitioner against order of the Adjudicating Authority was pending before the CESTAT. The appeal came to be decided by judgment and order dated 4th June 2015 and the CESTAT remanded the proceedings back to the Adjudicating Authority. After considering proceedings afresh, the Adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Tribunal in Original Application No. 241 of 2015. We also set aside the order dated 4th August 2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of 30% cut in pension for a period of 5 years. We remand the proceedings to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration based on the orders passed by CESTAT and the Adjudicating Authority. The Disciplinary Authority shall take a decision afresh with regard to penalty, if any, to be imposed on petitioner. If the UPSC needs to be consulted, the same be done in an expeditious manner. The entire exercise (including consultation with UPSC) be completed by the Disciplinary Authority and final order be passed in the proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of this order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
