TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue seeking to impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act on the importer who had rendered the raw mulberry silk imported by it liable for confiscation and in respect of which the Commissioner had demanded duty of about Rs. 36.5 lakhs along with interest. The Appeal No. C/336/2000 seeks to vacate the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Shri Sushil Kumar Kanodia in the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that on receipt of intelligence to the effect that M/s. Piccadilly Tradisons (hereinafter referred to as 'PT'), Hyderabad had diverted raw silk imported under DEEC Scheme in the domestic market without fulfilling export obligation investigation was initiated into the imports made by PT. Statements were recorded from Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the behest of his father Shri S.K. Kanodia. 4. A Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s. PT, Shri Chandravadan Natwarlal Shah, M/s. Gokul Textile Corporation, Bangalore and Shri S.K. Kanodia. After due process of law, the Commissioner passed the impugned order. He found that PT had diverted imported raw silk contravening the post-import condition of converting the same to finished products and exporting the finished products. For the failure of importer to fulfil the conditions of the Notification No. 204/92, dated 19-5-1992, the raw silk had been was imported without valid licence and the same were liable for confiscation. Shri Chandravadan Natwarlal Shah was therefore found liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (209) E.L.T. 220 (Tri.-Mumbai). 6. The Revenue Appeal (C/71/2001) seeks to penalise the importer under Section 114A on the ground that the provisions of Section 114A could be invoked in proceedings that were pending on or initiated after 28-9-96. The Commissioner had erred in not imposing penalty on the importer under Section 114A. Ld. SDR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and also the grounds in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. We have carefully considered the case records and the submissions made by both sides. From the impugned order, we find that offending transactions had taken place in the year 1995. There is no evidence of serving Show Cause Notice on Shri S.K. Kanodia. It is however evident that he was not heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. A69 (S.C.)." In view also of the aforesaid case law, we find that the penalty imposed on Shri S.K. Kanodia is not sustainable and that the appeal filed by him deserves to be allowed. 8. As regards the appeal filed by Revenue, it is settled legal position that a person cannot be penalised for acts of omission or commission which were not punishable in terms of provisions that existed at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner could not have imposed penalty on the importer in this case under Section 114A which was enacted on 28-9-96, much after the alleged transactions took place. Accordingly, the appeal filed the Revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
