Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1742 - CESTAT CHENNAIImposition of penalty - Duty Drawback - allegation of mis-declaration in the description as well as quantity of the export items, allegedly for the purpose of claiming undue higher drawback - appellant is co-accused - first appellant is free of any charge - HELD THAT:- The first appellant need not have any grievance since there is no demand of either penalty or fine against it. On being pointed out, Ld. Advocate concedes that there is no demand in respect of the first appellant. This being so, the first appellant is not entitled to any relief since it is not aggrieved nor is there any demand against it. Hence, no order is being passed against an imaginary demand which is not there on paper, in respect of Appeal No. C/40145/2019. It is trite law that an abettor cannot be penalized more than the Principal offender. In the present case, admittedly, the first appellant is the Principal offender, neither is there any proposal in the SCN for imposition of penalty as against the said company nor did the Adjudicating Authority passing the Order-in-Original or the de novo Order, impose any penalty on the Principal. Therefore, the company not having been penalized would ipso facto mean that guilt in the first place is not proved beyond reasonable doubt even against the principal offender. In these circumstances, the co-noticees or the co-offenders cannot be worse off than the principal offender and therefore, the penalties imposed against them is unsustainable. In any case, it is an admitted position of law that a co-accused cannot be worse off than the prime accused. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|