Madras High Court
Mr.Thirumalai Thiagarajan vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 18 October, 2022
C.M.A. No. 2217 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR .JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A. No. 2217 of 2022
Mr.Thirumalai Thiagarajan ..Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai II Comissionerate, No.60,
Rajaji Salai, Customs House,
Chennai – 600 001. ..Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the final order
No.40053/2022 dated 04.02.2022 in Appeal No. C/40019/2020-SM passed
by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chennai.
For Appellant :: Mr.N. Viswanathan
For Respondent :: M/s.Pramod Kumar Chopda
Avinash Wadhwani
1\4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No. 2217 of 2022
JUDGMENT
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
C. SARAVANAN,J.
The appellant has filed this appeal as against the impugned
order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide
final order No.40053/2022 dated 04.022.022 in Appeal No. C/40019/2020-
SM.
2. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has partly
allowed the appeal filed by the appellant by reducing the penalty
undersection 112[a] of Customs Act, 1962. Earlier, the original authority
namely, the Joint commissioner of Customs vide order dated 29.06.2018 in
Original Appeal No..64212/2018 had imposed penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the
appellant under Section 112[a] of the Customs Act, 1962. The aforesaid
order is said to have been despatched to the appellant on 03.07.2018.
However, the appellant filed an appeal on 05.09.2018 beyond the period of
limitation prescribed under Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962.
3. The appellant submits that there is substantial question of law
2\4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No. 2217 of 2022
involved as the appellant had no role to play in the import. It is submitted
on behalf of the appellant that though the Tribunal had concluded that the
appellant was not the mastermind, despite the same, the Tribunal had held
that the penalty imposed under Section 112[a] of Customs Act, 1962 by the
Joint Commissioner of Customs, Group 6 Chennai II Customs
Commissionerate and confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals-
II], Chennai was correct.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The Tribunal appears to have entertained the appeal filed by the
appellant, though there is no discussion in the order passed by the Tribunal
as to how the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner was in time. On
the other hand, the Tribunal has examined the issue on merits and concluded
that the appellant was not the mastermind, however, confirmed the penalty
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
3\4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No. 2217 of 2022
AND
C. SARAVANAN,J.
nv
imposed under Section 112[a] of Customs Act, 1962, while substantially
reducing the quantum from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.10,000/-
6. We are of the view that the present appeal is not maintainable
and it is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal should not have entertained
the issue relating to levy of penalty as the appeal before the Appellate
Commissioner itself was time-barred. The civil miscellaneous appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. However, we leave open the issue pertaining to
interpretation of Section 112[b] in an appropriate case.
(S.V.N.J.) (C.S.N.J.)
nv 18.10.2022
To
The Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai II Comissionerate, No.60,
Rajaji Salai, Customs House,
Chennai – 600 001. C.M.A. No.2217 of 2022
4\4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
