2012 (5) TMI 493 - HC - Central Excise

Export - acts of commission and omission were imputed against the appellant - penalty - appeal, the challenge to the order of the Tribunal is on the ground that though the Tribunal has specifically taken note of the statements made by the appellant in para 28 of the impugned order but the statements are not dealt with and no conclusions/findings are arrived at by the CESTAT qua the appellant - violation of natural justice Held that - appellant herein had issued airway bills; he had acted as an agent of the 5 concerns which were owned by Shri Tejwant Singh; he played his role on specific instructions of Shri Tejwant Singh; and he was dealing with the Customs Officers in respect of export of these very goods. The Tribunal is thus categorical that the appellant was connected with the procurement of the goods by the exporters and there were other statements and sufficient material to implicate the appellant, no merit in these appeals accordingly dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order dismissing appellant's appeal against penalty imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) order imposing a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not specifically address his statements made in para 28 of the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of his appeal.

2. The appellant's statements in para 28 included his retraction of a statement recorded under force and coercion, his role in issuing airway bills through M/s. Bedi & Co., and his lack of involvement in examination or processing of export documents. The appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider these statements adequately.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's premises were in Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, and he admitted to issuing airway bills for firms controlled by Shri Tejwant Singh. The appellant also confessed to irregularities in cargo clearance and involvement in writing shipping bills to manipulate duty payments.

4. The appellant claimed to have retracted a statement dated 15-10-2001, but the Tribunal relied on a statement from 29-8-2001, which was not retracted. The Tribunal also cited corroborative evidence from Shri Tejwant Singh and Inspector Rajeev Kumar Sharma, supporting the appellant's involvement in cargo clearance.

5. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal found substantial evidence implicating him in abetting the exporters' fraudulent activities. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions were detrimental to revenue interests, leading to the dismissal of his appeal and pending applications.

6. The Tribunal's detailed analysis highlighted the appellant's active role in issuing airway bills, acting as an agent for firms linked to Shri Tejwant Singh, and collaborating with customs officials for export activities. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeals and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment outlines the issues raised, the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal's findings, and the final decision dismissing the appeals.