Commissioner of Central Excise vs Hanif Hingora

D.A. Mehta, J.—This appeal challenges order dated 5-6-2007 (wrongly mentioned in the title as 18-5-2007) made by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad by proposing the following question:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the amount of penalty levied/imposed on the respondent u/s 112[a] of the Customs Act, 1962?

As can be seen from the cause-title and the impugned order of the Tribunal, a group of appeals were heard by the Tribunal and disposed of by a common order and hence, all the Appeal Nos. viz. Customs Appeal Nos. 1543 to 1548 of 2005 have been mentioned in the cause-title. However, learned Counsel pointed out that the present appeal arisea from the Tribunal''s order in Custom Appeal No. C/1547/05.

Learned advocate for the appellant requested for permission to amend the proposed question by substituting the correct section in the proposed question. Accordingly, permission was granted and the amended question reads as under:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the amount of penalty levied/imposed on the respondent u/s 112[b] of the Customs Act, 1962?

Heard the learned advocate for the appellant-revenue. It was submitted that the issue relates to a case of clandestine removal of goods and various penalties levied on different persons in this regard. It was submitted that the respondent has been visited with penalty in the Order-in-Original because of the statements made by the driver and owner of the tempo that it was the respondent who had directed them to load the goods in the tempo. That in the circumstance,, the Tribunal had committed an error in deleting the penalty in question.

The impugned order of Tribunal in case of the respondent records the following findings:

As regards the penalty imposed on individual in appeal No. C/1547/05, it is seen from the records that the penalty has been imposed on this person just for directing the transporter to load the vehicle from the factory premises. It is accepted fact that the appellants in this appeal had no knowledge that the goods are liable for confiscation. Nothing contrary is on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case penalty is not permissible. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and I do so.

Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 permits levy of penalty on any person who acquires possession or is in any way concerned in carrying, etc. any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation u/s 111 of the Act. In the present case not only the role of the respondent is not specified but the nexus with the manufacturing unit is also not established. The finding of the Tribunal is that the respondent had no knowledge about the goods being liable for confiscation. The Tribunal has further stated, after appreciating the evidence on record, that nothing contrary is available on record to show that the respondent had either knowledge or had reason to believe that the goods in question were liable for confiscation.

In the circumstance, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, as proposed or otherwise. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.