Page 173 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] S. MUTHUSAMY v. ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL (ADJ.), D.R.I., MUMBAI 851

Penalty - Imposition of - Exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-
Cus. based on Indian origin of goods, had no duty implication - Such declara-
tion in bill of entry has no consequence - Hence penalty is not sustainable un-
der Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 37]
Penalty - Imposition of - With reference to value adopted for redemp-
tion of confiscated goods - It is unsustainable for penalty under Section 114AA
of Customs Act, 1962. [para 34]
Precedent - Scope of - Case law built on shifting stands of jurisdiction,
accepted by consent - It is not comparable with one that case having jurisdic-
tional competence which was contested and argued by rival sides. [para 25]
Precedent - Scope of - Decision which did not examine legal aspect at
root of jurisdiction - It is no precedent for contending that a subsequent deci-
sion, which did, is bad law. [para 25]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Basudev Garg v. Commissioner — 2013 (294) E.L.T. 353 (Del.) — Referred ................................... [Para 21]
Commissioner v. Dempo Engineering Works Ltd.
— 2015 (319) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.) — Distinguished .............................................................. [Paras 22, 24]
Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, D.R.I.
— 2019 (366) E.L.T. A95 (Tri. - Mumbai)
— Explained and affirmed ............................................. [Paras 3, 16, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33]
Lalitpur Power Generation Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2017 (356) E.L.T. 82 (Tribunal) — Distinguished ........................................... [Paras 18, 19, 23, 25]
Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1998 (98) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Distinguished ...................... [Para 31]
Prakash Sancheti v. Commissioner — 2013 (292) E.L.T. 273 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ................................................................................................................... [Paras 23, 25]
Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 1986 (26) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.)
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 29]
Sahil Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2010 (250) E.L.T. 310 (Tribunal) — Distinguished ............................................... [Paras 19, 23, 25]
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar —AIR 1958 SC 452 — Referred .................................... [Para 28]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Vipin Jain, Akshit Malhotra, J.C. Patel,
Krishna Kumar and Ramnath Prabhu, Advocates, for
the Appellant.
Ms. P.V. Sekhar, Joint Commissioner (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order per : C.J. Mathew, Member (T)]. - These four appellants, S/Shri
N.R. Jayant, S. Muthusamy, D.N. Mathur and Dhananjay Datar, all full-time em-
ployees of M/s. ABG Shipyard Ltd., are before us seeking to quash the penalties
imposed on them under Section 112 and Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 in
proceedings that were initiated for the allegedly fraudulent import of ‘drawings’
ostensibly for modernization and expansion of their shipyard and also for con-
struction of vessels. In disposing of the preliminaries, it was brought to our no-
tice that, though the imported ‘drawings’ are deemed to be goods by classifica-
tion in the First Schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Notification No. 12/2012-
Cus., dated 17th March, 2012 (and its predecessor Notification No. 15/2005-Cus.,
dated 1st March, 2005) exempts it from duty liability and the proceedings centred
around the allegation that these, being of no use for the importer, were put
through the process of import, by dispatching the ones that were already in their
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  173