Page 201 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) v. OMPRAKASH PARASRAMPURIA 383

2020 (373) E.L.T. 383 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar and M.S. Karnik, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT)
Versus
OMPRAKASH PARASRAMPURIA
Custom Appeal No. 35 of 2019 with C.A. No. 36 of 2019, decided on 11-2-2020
1
Penalty - Quantum of - Reduction of penalty by non-speaking order
not proper - Penalty reduced from ` 10 crores to ` one lakh by Tribunal only on
the ground that appeals against the Company and Directors have abated -
However, in absence of statutory provisions mandating reduction in penalty
on the ground of abatement of appeal, other factors for the use of discretion
also required to be considered by Tribunal - Impugned order of Tribunal non-
speaking and required to be set aside - Matter remanded to Tribunal only on
the aspect of fixation of the quantum of penalty - Section 112A of Customs Act,
1962. [paras 6, 8]
Case remanded
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri P.S. Jetly with J.B. Mishra, for the Appellant.
Shri S. Sridharan, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - P.C. : These two Appeals arise from the same set of facts and
have been disposed of by common order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 13 March 2019.
2. By the impugned order the Tribunal had reduced the penalty im-
posed on the Respondents-Directors of a Company from Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Ru-
pees Ten Crores Only) to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only). The Appeals
were admitted by order dated 7 November 2019, observing that prima facie the
Court was of the view that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and re-
quire reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal, hearing of the Appeals was
fixed on 3 February 2020. Accordingly, the Appeals are taken up for hearing to-
day.
3. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. After hearing
Learned Counsel for the parties we have reframed the question of law as under :-
“Whether impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be set
aside and the proceedings be relegated for reconsideration of the Tribunal
on the ground that the order is non-speaking order?”
4. In view of this limited question framed, it is not necessary to narrate
the facts in detail.
5. Parasrampuria Industries Limited was issued certain Advance Li-
censes by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. The bonds were executed in
respect of these Licenses. Parasrampuria Industries Limited was allowed imports
under the Advanced Licenses. According to the Appellant, Parasrampuria Indus-
tries Limited (the Company) had undertaken to fulfill the Export Obligations and
the Company failed to submit the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate. The
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Order No. 85743-85744/2019, dated 13-3-2019 by CESTAT, Mumbai.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  201