Against first respondent no relief has been sought and second respondent is shown as “Others” - since “others” has not been specified, Revenue appeal is not maintainable
YESTERDAY, we reported the case with the following headnote -
"Penalty - In Customs Act nowhere is it mentioned that arranging for loan or giving the amount on lease for payment of duty of imported goods constitute an offence for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a)/(b) of the Customs Act - In the absence of any concrete evidence, it cannot be said the car is old and used - benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus is available to the appellants - value of the car imported from UK cannot be relied upon for arriving at the AV of the car imported from South Africa - Appeals allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT"
The above was an order passed by the CESTAT on 30/10/2012 in the matter of appeals filed by the appellants Inderpal Singh Gujral and Jang Bahadur Singh Gujral.
Incidentally, against the same Order-in-Appeal that was appealed against by the aforementioned appellants, the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva had also filed an appeal in the year 2011 itself.
This fact was, obviously, not brought to the notice of the Bench when the appeal filed by the appellants was heard.
Be that as it may, the appeal filed by the Revenue came up before the Bench recently and this is what the CESTAT held -
“Revenue is in appeal against the respondents namely Shri Jang Bahadur Singh Gujral and Others.
2.From the impugned order we find that ShriInderpal Singh Gujral and Shri Jang Bahadur Singh Gujral were aggrieved parties and preferred appeals before this Tribunal vide appeals no. C/734 and 778/2011. Both ShriInderpal Singh Gujral and Shri Jang Bahadur Singh Gujral have succeeded in their appeals vide Order no. A/863-864/12/CSTB/C-I dated 30.10.2012. In this appeal the Revenue has made Shri Jang Bahadur Singh Gujral as one of the Respondent against whom no relief has been sought and the appeal has been titled as Shri Jang Bahadur Singh Gujral and Others but the name of “Others” has not been specified. In these circumstances, the appeal before this Tribunal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.”