TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ield is totally at variance with the recently announced National Litigation Policy - Decided against the revenue - C/336-346 and 355-359/2010-SM(BR) - 1128-1143/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 30-9-2010 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri K.P. Singh and Anil Khanna, SDRs, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Since the issue involved in these 16 appeals is common, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts leading to these appeals are, in brief, as under :- 2.1 In respect of appeals at Serial Nos. 1 to 5, the respondents were intercepted while coming from Nepal on their bicycles carrying foreign origin metal scrap totally valued at Rs. 5,390/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of the Respondents under Section 112. Department filed review appeals to Commissioner (Appeals) for enhancement of penalty to at least Rs. 5,000/- each. 2.2.2 The Respondents at Sl.Nos. 10 11 were intercepted while coming from Nepal with miscellaneous goods of foreign as well as Indian origin valued at Rs. 10,835/- which were confiscated by the Asstt. Commissioner who besides confiscation also imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- on Shri Rakesh Singh and Shri Virender Singh Sampat respectively under Section 112. Department filed review appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) for enhancement of penalty to at least Rs. 5000/- each. 2.2.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the above six appeals of the Department for enhance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department has come in appeal. 3. None appeared for the respondents. 4. Heard Shri K.P. Singh and Shri Anil Khanna, ld. Departmental Representatives for the Department, who pleaded that as per the provisions of Section 112 (a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, the minimum penalty prescribed is Rs. 5,000/- and penalty below Rs. 5,000/- cannot be imposed on a person in respect of whom these penal provisions are attracted, that in this regard, they rely upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Narayan Das reported in 2008 (222) E.L.T. 215 (Tribunal-Delhi), wherein it was held that Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes a minimum pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition is in force under this act or any other law for the time being force, to a penalty, not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater; (ii) in case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding the duty sough to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees , whichever is the greater. .................................. 6. From a plain reading of this Section, it is clear that for the contraventions of the type mentioned in Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Section 112, the penalty prescribed, when in respect of the offending goods any prohibition is in force, is not exceeding the value of the goods or Rs. 5,000/-, whichever is greater and in case of dutiable goods othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (a), (b), (c) and (d) has been committed or rupees two thousand, whichever is greater. In respect of this Rule, Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal v. Rama Wood Crafts (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 348 (Tribunal-LB) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 439 (Tri-LB) has held that what this rule prescribes is an upper limit of penalty within which the adjudicating authority can determine the quantum of penalty and this rule does not prescribe a minimum penalty. Section 112(i) (ii) is in pari-materia with penal provisions Rule 25(i) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and therefore, the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Rama Wood Crafts (P) Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to this case. The judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
