TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue had come before this Court by way of THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. NOPAJI LAKHMAJI CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI [ 2020 (4) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2020 dismissed the Tax Appeal No.106 of 2020. The order states that since there is no clear proposal in the SCN on imposition of redemption fine and also in the OIO, there is no crystallized demand of redemption fine against each noticee. It was held that the department could not recover fine from the noticee. In this position, there is no demand of redemption fine against the appellants. In this view, there is no case of demand of redemption fine,Therefore, the rejection of application for non-payment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. We need not adjudicate the questions of law as proposed by the Revenue as we take notice of the fact that a common order was passed by the Tribunal in two appeals being the Customs Appeal No.12787 of 2018 and Customs Appeal No.12788 of 2018 respectively from which the present appeal arises before us. Against the order passed by the Tribunal in the Customs Appeal No.12787 of 2018, the Revenue had come before this Court by way of Tax Appeal No.106 of 2020. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2020 dismissed the Tax Appeal No.106 of 2020. The order reads thus : 1. This tax appeal under Section-130 of the Customs Act, 1962 [for short 'The Act, 1962'] is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) or Appellate Tribunal; Question for consideration before us is whether the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the application of the respondent for compounding the offence can be stated to be the one passed by the adjudicating authority, as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act. If we analyse the said provision, it defines the term Adjudicating Authority to mean any authority, competent to pass any order or decision under the Act. The question, therefore, arises whether the order rejecting the application for compounding was one passed by the Commissioner under the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this respect, we have noticed statutory scheme pertaining to the procedure for compounding the offence. The power of compounding flow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to merits of the issue, the Tribunal has merely remanded the proceedings before the Commissioner for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent. 4. We may clarify that although the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Girish B. Mishra is in connection with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, yet the provisions of customs are analogous to the provisions of the Act, 1944. The principle of law as explained in Girish B. Mishra [Supra] is applicable in the present case. 5. So far as the second question as proposed by the Revenue is concerned, we may look into the findings recorded by the tribunal in this regard. We may quote the relevant observa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner trust is liable to pay the fine of ₹ 7.25 lacs in lieu of confiscation. In absence of any proposal in the show cause notice for imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation relatable to the petitioner and in absence of any directions contained in the order-in-original that such fine would be borne by the petitioner, it was simply not open for the department to seek recovery thereof from the petitioner. 7. The Tribunal in so-many words has observed that there was no clear proposal in the show cause notice with regard to imposition of the redemption fine and also in the order-in-original. The tribunal has observed that there is no crystallized demand of redemption fine against each of the noticee. 8. In such circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
