Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 194 - CESTAT MUMBAILevy of penalty u/s 112 of CA - Allegation against the employees of ICICI Bank - Forged letters - issuance of project implementation authority certificate - recovery of duty foregone by recourse to notification no. 84/97-Cus dated 11th November 1997 on imports - principal plea of the appellants is that the Tribunal had, in appeal of both M/s Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd and M/s ICICI Bank Ltd, held that duty was not leviable owing to substantive compliance with the intent of the said notification - HELD THAT:- Imposition of penalties under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 on persons is triggered by finding that, in relation to goods liable to confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962, acts of omission and commission have rendered such outcome. The role of individuals must, therefore, be subjected to scrutiny in relation to the facts that have rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Undoubtedly, on that the Tribunal is categorical. It appears that the factual matrix therein is inextricably enmeshed with the ‘project implementation authority certificate’ and the relevance of that certificate to legal consequence of its validity has been decided by the Tribunal in the appeals of M/S. RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD., M/S. ICICI BANK LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI. [2019 (7) TMI 1987 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. There is, thus, material alteration of the narrative of the case and consequence. The roles of the appellants would need to be evaluated within the rubric of the altered narrative and it could well be that the impugned order, in such circumstances, lacks detail that may be necessary to decide the present appeals. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the allegation against the two appellants to be considered afresh in adjudication for which purpose, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the original authority for fresh decision. The two appellants herein should be afforded an opportunity to be heard in person in accordance with law. Appeal remanded.
|