TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the specific clause of the Customs Act will not vitiate the details mentioned in the show cause notice in clear terms. Hence, considering the above factual position, we find no ground to entertain the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and same stands dismissed - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. No. 3161 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri S. Palanikumar, for the Appellant. Shri Rajnish Pathiyil, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This Appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 25-6-2012 in Appeal No. C/271 of 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 3,40,000/- together with the appropriate duty payable and in respect of other set of goods, they were also confiscated and allowed to redeemed on payment of a fine of ₹ 2,45,000/- together with the appropriate duty payable. The Original Authority imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on both the passenger as well as on the appellant and the penalty was imposed on the passenger under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the said order, both the passenger as well as the appellant filed appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT, found that it is not a case where any interference is called for and confirmed the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeding is vitiated. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of B. Lakshmichand v. Government of India reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 322 (Mad.). The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. A94 (S.C.) in the case of Commissioner v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. and the decision reported in 2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Limited. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue while supporting the order passed by the CESTAT, submitted that non-mentioning of the specific clause of the Customs Act in the show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 112(a) of the Customs Act, but by order dated 28-5-2004, the Original Authority imposed penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 9. It is settled legal proposition that mere quoting of a wrong provision will not vitiate the proceedings. On a perusal of the show cause notice, it is evidently clear that all materials were available and a detailed show cause notice was issued pointing out the role played by the appellant in the process of smuggling of goods of high value into India in violation of the provisions or the Customs Act. The appellant submitted his reply and contested the matter on merits. The Original Authority, after considering the submissions, by a speaking Order has rejected the contentions of the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest; (v) in the case of goods falling bath under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees whichever is the highest. 11. On a reading of the order passed by the CESTAT, it is seen that the CESTAT has dealt with the role played by the appellant. The role played by the appellant has also been elaborately considered by the Original Authority in his order dated 28-5-2004. The Travel Agent, in his statement dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not been specifically spelt out either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act. Even in the said judgment, it was pointed out that the said case was not a case where a wrong provision has been quoted, so that it can be stated that it was due to a bona fide error, which did not vitiate the jurisdiction of the authority. 14. In the present case, the show cause notice elaborately discussed the role played by the appellant. Therefore, merely because the show cause notice does not mention Section 112(b) but mentioned Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, would not vitiate the entire proceedings; more so when the ingredient found place in the show cause notice and non-mentioning of the specific clause of the Customs Act will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
