2006 (9) TMI 334 - AT - Customs

2015 (10) TMI 2193 - SC

Issues Involved:
1. Error apparent from the face of records in the CESTAT order.
2. Confirmation of duty, penalty, and redemption fine by the Supreme Court.
3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment regarding penalties and fines.
4. Re-examination of records and imposition of penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Error Apparent from the Face of Records in the CESTAT Order:
The Appellants argued that there was an error in the CESTAT order No. A/4771WZB105-CIV (C.S.T.B) dated 22-11-05. The Hon'ble Member (J) stated that the Redemption fine of Rs. 15 lacs was not confirmed by the Supreme Court, while the Member (T) added that the Redemption fine becomes payable only when the goods are redeemed. This contradiction created an error apparent from the face of records. The Revenue admitted that the words added by the Member (T) were redundant and should be overlooked. However, the Tribunal could not alter the final order unless rectified. The Tribunal found the mistake obvious by reading paras 8 and 9 of the order dated 25-11-05, thus granting the rectification application and recalling the order dated 22-11-05.

2. Confirmation of Duty, Penalty, and Redemption Fine by the Supreme Court:
The Appellants' counsel referred to the Supreme Court's order, which confirmed the duty but did not discuss the confirmation of fine or penalty under Sections 114A or 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court confirmed the duty on shortages of gold and diamonds and capital goods in paras 13, 17, and 19. However, the Revenue contended that para 32 of the Supreme Court's judgment confirmed the penalty equal to the duty. The Tribunal questioned whether para 32 pertained to both the Appellants and M/s. B.V. Jewels, concluding that if it did, the matter must be re-examined, and the penalty would not arise at this stage.

3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's Judgment Regarding Penalties and Fines:
The Tribunal found that para 32, if applicable to both the Appellants and M/s. B.V. Jewels, implied a remand for re-examination, thus negating the imposition of penalties at this stage. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's judgment dealt only with the duty in paras 13 to 21, and duty, fine, and penalty are independent of each other. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in Mohammad Ali Khan and Others v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, emphasizing that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural sense, avoiding additions or rejections of words. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no penalty or redemption fine imposed in paras 13 to 17 of the Supreme Court's judgment.

4. Re-examination of Records and Imposition of Penalties:
The Tribunal harmoniously construed the judgment's words, concluding that the re-examination of records pertained only to M/s. B.V. Jewels. The Appellants' counsel alternatively argued that no penalty or fine was contemplated in paras 13 to 22 of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Tribunal found that the confirmation of demand in paras 19 and 22 implied both duty and penalty on capital goods valued at Rs. 58,58,696/- and motors, hand pieces, and carbon brushes valued at Rs. 36,70,765/-. The Tribunal agreed that the penalty was confirmed only to the extent stated in paras 19 and 22, not for shortages of gold, diamonds, and other capital goods. Additionally, there was no confirmation of the Redemption fine or penalty under Section 112(a) by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of the application and appeal, confirming that the penalties were applicable only to specific capital goods and not to the shortages of gold and diamonds. The Tribunal also clarified that there was no Redemption fine confirmed by the Supreme Court.

← Previous Next →