9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cases with the consent of the parties and after hearing Shri T.P. Nambiar, learned Counsel for appellants Company who is a DEEC licence holder and alleged to have diverted the goods in contravention of Section 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the other appellant G.M. Krishna, Managing Director of the appellant Company, and Smt. L. Maithili. Learned Counsel for the other appellants viz. Suresh Kumar Ramsisaria and Sandeep Sethia, who are alleged to have dealt with these goods imported under the DEEC scheme and have helped in disposing of the same in the market and consequently abetted in the other manner and have been imposed penalty thereafter under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Shri T.P. Nambiar, learned Counsel ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f natural justice as contended by Shri T.P. Nambiar, Advocate, there is no finding of any pre-concert and/or knowledge or reason to believe which are essential ingredients to arrive at a finding before penalty could be imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Commissioner. The order is a non-speaking order. She further submits that retraction of the statements has not been considered by the Commissioner in the impugned order and therefore, the order is required to be set aside and their appeals allowed. 4. Shri G. Sreekumar Menon, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the department took us through the findings in the order and read the relevant paras, where confessions of the parties recorded under Section 108 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in spite of the learned Counsel Shri T.P. Nambiar having asked for adjournment of the hearing and why the adjournment sought for was not granted. We find that the procedure adopted by the Commissioner in advancing the date of hearing when the parties have asked for adjournment of the hearing does not appear to be justified in the facts and circumstances of this case. We find that the Commissioner has confirmed large amount of duty of Rs. 63,03,347/- on the appellants company and also grave consequence of penalty not only on the Company, on the Managing Director but also on the other appellants who were issued with show cause notices have been imposed and in such serious matter, the grave consequences of duty and penalty could not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
