Allowed

Kamal Jain v. Tiruchirapalli

CESTAT7 Aug 2024C/40927/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal challenging a penalty of Rs. 55,00,000 under Section 112(a). Since the underlying common order was set aside for de novo adjudication pending a Supreme Court verdict on coal classification, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the original authority for de novo adjudication.

Kamal Jain vs Tiruchirapalli — Writ and Judicial Review | CESTAT (2024)

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

¶2

COURT HALL - I

¶3

Customs Appeal No. 40927 of 2015

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.11/2014 dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy)

¶5

Kamal Jain Appellant Post Box No.4, Mettur Dam, Salem District, Tamilnadu – 636 402

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Commissioner of Customs No.1, Willams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.

¶8

Respondent

¶9

APPEARANCE:

¶10

Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Rajaraman, AC (AR) for the Respondent

¶11

CORAM

¶12

Hon’ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical)

¶13

Final Order No. 41157/2024

¶14

Date of Hearing/Decision: 07.08.2024

¶15

Per P. Dinesha,

¶16

This appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Original No.11/2014 dated 30.09.2024. The appellant was the Head, Finance of the importer firm, namely Malco Energy Ltd., Salem and by this appeal he has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.55,00,000 under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962.

¶17

¶18

When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri. G. Krishnamurthy Ld. Advocate, submitted that the main issue of classification of coal in the batch of appeals including that of Malco Energy Ltd., in which the Chennai Bench vide its Final Order Nos. 43295 – 43328/2017, has remanded the matter back to the file of adjudicating authority. He would also submit that the very same issue is the subject matter of appeal even before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, in the light of the main matter having been remanded back to the file of original authority, the present case of the appellant may also be remanded since the original common order stands set aside by this Bench.

¶19

Per contra Shri. R. Rajaraman Ld. Assistant Commissioner though relied upon the findings in the impugned order, but however concurred with the plea of the advocate that the main matter has been set aside to the file of the original authority for de novo adjudication.

¶20

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and have also perused the impugned order; we have also gone through the Final Order of this Bench referred to by the Ld. Advocate during the course of arguments. We are satisfied that the original authority had passed a common order in

¶21

¶22

respect of the present appellant before us now and also the firm Malco Energy Ltd., Salem in which the appellant here was the Head, Finance and since the said order stands set aside for de novo adjudication, hence, the penalty imposed on the appellant before us does not survive. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order insofar as the present appellant is concerned and remit the matter back to the file of the original authority to pass a de novo order in accordance with law. The main issue in respect of the firm Malco Energy Ltd., is admittedly the classification of coal and hence, the original authority shall await the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as directed by this Bench in its Final Order Nos. 43295 – 43328/2017 dated 20.12.2017 and only thereafter can he consider the leviability or otherwise of penalty under Section 112 (a) on this appellant.

¶23

Resultantly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with the above directions. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

¶24

(Order pronounced in open court)

¶25

(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) ( P. DINESHA ) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) psd

Kamal Jain v. Tiruchirapalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Jain v. Tiruchirapalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D H Patkar & Co. vs Cc (Export Promotion) Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs(General) Mumbai- vs Kamal Clearing & Forwarding Pvt. Ltd.

Preventive Vijayawada vs Dinesh Granite Exports

Principal Commissioner, Customs -New Delhi(Prev) vs Om Sai Ram Trading

Air India Ltd. vs Cochin-cus

Globus Industries & Services Ltd. vs Kandla

Globus Industries & Services Ltd. vs Kandla

Globus Industries & Services Ltd. vs Kandla