9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tar Time and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on Sanjeev Arora as a partner of Elekta Electronics. Penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed upon Elekta Electronics Ltd. and Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on Vikram Arora, another partner of Elekta Electronics. 2. The case of the Department is that M/s. Star Time and M/s. Elekta Electronics had fraudulently claimed duty draw back by exporting rejected/ cheap/junk/non-functional semi-conductor devices at an inflated price in the guise of semi-conductor devices viz. power transistors falling under Item No. 4724(C) and 4724(D) of the Drawback schedule. Statement of Sanjeev Arora was recorded on 18-7-1995 in which he admitted that since a large investment of Rs. 20 to 25 lakhs had to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount resulted in excess and erroneous claim of duty drawback and since the amount has been repaid, he ordered appropriation of the same, and also held the concerned persons liable to penalty under Section 114, since the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act. 3. We have heard Shri Handoo who submits inter alia that the request for cross-examination of officers of DRI and officers of the Customs which request was made in the reply to the show cause notice as well as in the written submissions and during personal hearing, was not allowed on the ground that no reasons had been set out by the appellants for seeking cross-examination. He submits that clear reasons have been given by the appellants in the repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of any evidence put forth by the appellants to show the actual price of the goods exported, the Department has rightly relied upon the statement of Sanjeev Arora to hold that the cheap quality of semi-conductor devices purchased @ 25 paise per piece have been exported and drawback claim for a much higher amount has been claimed by the appellants. He, therefore, contends that the prohibition contained in Section 76(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is attracted in the present case. He prays that the impugned order may be upheld and the appeal dismissed. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. From the reply dated 6-9-1997 to the show cause notice, it is clear that Sanjeev Arora had given reasons for seeking cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
