Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + CGOVT Customs - 2018 (3) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1726 - CGOVT - CustomsImposition of penalty - active involvement in the case of smuggling - case of Revenue is that in spite of respondent’s active involvement in the case the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly exonerated him and as per Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have power to remand back the case to original authority - Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case back - Held that:- Applicant played an important role as a loader in connection with the wrong activities of Mr. Nagia and is liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act - Apparently all the facts have not been considered objectively by the Commissioner (Appeals). Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to remand the case back to original authority? - Held that:- The Government agrees with the applicant that Commissioner (Appeals) does not have power to remand the case under sub-section (3) of Section 128A of the Customs Act. Hence the Government set aside the order-in-appeal. Considering the fact that the respondent is a loader only and his role was limited to shifting the baggages within the Airport only by taking a paltry amount of just ₹ 200/-, the Government reduces the penalty from ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 10,000/- on the respondent - Revision application allowed.
|