9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 261 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalty - validity of the reason recorded for not imposing penalty on Shri Affak Motiwala and Shri Afzal Madni Palla, by the Ld Commissioner - Held that - In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has not brought out any contrary evidences whereby the aforesaid order could be said to be devoid of merit and bad in law. In the result, we do not see any reason to interfere with the said order. Consequently, the Revenue s appeal being without merit, is dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Revenue's appeal against imposition of penalty on certain individuals
Analysis: 1. Facts of the Case: The case involved a show cause notice issued to a company and three individuals for recovery of customs duty and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act. The Commissioner confirmed the customs duty and penalties on the company but dropped penalties on two individuals. 2. Grounds of Appeal: The Revenue appealed against the decision of not imposing penalties on the two individuals, arguing that the reasons given by the Commissioner for dropping the penalties were incorrect. 3. Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner imposed penalties on one individual for involvement in removing imported goods without payment of duties and trying to mislead the Department. However, penalties were dropped on the other two individuals based on lack of evidence of their involvement. 4. Appellate Tribunal's Analysis: Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not provide any contrary evidence to challenge the Commissioner's decision. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the order, and thus dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 5. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop penalties on two individuals based on the lack of evidence implicating them in the customs duty evasion scheme. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing substantial evidence to challenge a lower authority's decision in such cases.
|
