Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3080-3081 OF 2005
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MEERUT Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ASHWANI KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. Respondent(s)
(WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3082 OF 2005)
O R D E R
C.A. NOS.3080-3081/2005:
1. These appeals emanate from the judgment dated
18.6.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“Tribunal”, for short) in
Appeal Nos.C/78-79/02-NB(A) whereby the appeal filed by
the respondents was allowed and the penalty imposed upon
respondent No.1 Ashwani Kumar Jain was fixed at Rs.1
crore. However, the penalty imposed upon respondent No.2
Balbir Singh Sethi was set aside by the Tribunal.
2. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the appellant contends that the
impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities. He
has drawn our attention to paragraph 9 of the impugned
judgment wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:
2
“During the hearing of the case, the learned counsel
for the appellants pointed out that the penalty on
Shri Balbir Singh Sethi was entirely unwarranted. He
has pointed out that the show-cause notice did not
even allege that Shri Sethi was part of the
conspiracy. There is also no material to show that
he was aware of the excess quantity or
undervaluation of the goods.”
3. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that
the aforementioned findings of the Tribunal are
untenable. He has also drawn our attention to the Show
Cause Notice dated 5.1.2001 sent by the Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, I.P. Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New
Delhi, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
“(iii) The said M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut, Shri
Ashwani Kumar Jain, Prop. M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut,
who masterminded the entire operation. Shri Balbir
Singh Sethi, who was actively involved in the entire
operation as an authorised signatory of M/s. Meerut
Exim, Meerut, and ensured the improper clearance
from Customs and subsequent storage of goods, Shri
Trilok Nath Mittal, who was also actively involved
in planning the operation with A.K. Jain, and later
on was involved in disposing of the smuggled goods
in the market knowing well that they were improperly
imported goods and were liable to confiscation
appear liable to penal action under Section 112(1)
and (b) and/or Section 114A of the Customs Act,
1962.”
4. Mr. Parasaran has also drawn our attention to the
order dated 29.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner,
Customs & Central Excise, Meerut, in which the learned
Commissioner has clearly observed as under:
3
“The said M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut, Shri Ashwani
Kumar Jain, Prop. M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut, who
master minded the entire operation, Shri Balbir
Singh Sethi, who was actively involved in the entire
operation as an authorised signatory of M/s. Meerut
Exim, Meerut, and ensured the improper clearance
from Customs and subsequent storage of goods, Shri
Tirlok Nath Mittal, who was also actively involved
in planning the operation with A.K. Jain, and later
on was involved in disposing of the smuggled goods
in the market knowing well that they were improperly
imported goods and were liable to confiscation are
liable to penal action under Section 112(a) and (b)
and/or Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.”
5. As regards, Balbir Singh Sethi, issue No.(iii) was
framed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise,
Meerut and the Commissioner of Customs having arrived at
a clear finding of conspiracy in which Balbir Singh Sethi
was involved, the Tribunal could not have arrived at the
finding that Balbir Singh Sethi was not involved in the
conspiracy.
6. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to
set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matters to
the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. We
direct the said Tribunal to decide the appeals de novo
after hearing the parties. All questions are left open
for the parties to be raised before the Tribunal.
4
7. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, we
th
direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 25
October, 2010. We request the Tribunal to decide the
appeals as expeditiously as possible.
8. With the aforementioned observation and direction,
these appeals are disposed of.
C.A. No.3082/2005:
9. In view of the order passed by us in Civil Appeal
Nos.3080-3081/2005, this appeal becomes infructuous and
is dismissed as such.
.....................J
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
.....................J
(DEEPAK VERMA)
New Delhi;
September 29, 2010.