Case Details: Buhariwala Logistics vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2025) 34 Centax 365 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Ms Hemambika R. Priya, Member (T)
- S/Shri Dr Sujay Kantawala & Ms Aishwarya Kantawala, Advs., for the Appellant
- Shri Shiv Shankar, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The appellant, a logistics firm, along with a co-noticee, received a common show cause notice, which was adjudicated by passing a common adjudication order. The appellant challenged the adjudication order before CESTAT, and CESTAT set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The said order attained finality in the absence of any appeal by the Department. Subsequently, the co-noticee filed an appeal against the same adjudication order, and CESTAT remanded the matter of the co-noticee to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. During the remand proceedings pertaining to the co-noticee, the adjudicating authority reopened the matter of the appellant-logistic firm, which had already been concluded, and imposed a penalty by passing the impugned order despite objections raised by the appellant. The legal issue arising was whether the adjudicating authority could reopen the original penalty adjudication in remand proceedings concerning a co-noticee under Sections 122 and 122A of the Customs Act, 1962. The matter was accordingly placed before CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that once the original adjudication order, so far as it related to the imposition of penalty on the appellant-logistic firm, was set aside by CESTAT and attained finality in the absence of any challenge by the Department, the matter could not be reopened merely because the co-noticee subsequently filed an appeal and the co-noticee’s matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the impugned adjudication order imposing penalty on the appellant-logistic firm in the co-noticee’s remand proceedings could not be sustained and was quashed.
