9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. These three appeals have been preferred by the above captioned appellants against the common order-in-original dated 31-12-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs who had imposed penalty each on the appellant Mrs. Artee Chauhan and Avtar Singh Chauhan and of Rs. 10,00,000/- on appellant Balbir Singh. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d recovery of the draw back amount of Rs. 18,27,951/- and imposition of penalties. After getting their replies the Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 39,46,751/- and recovery of drawback amount of Rs. 18,27,951/- from the firm M/s. Kan Karan Impex along with penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Commissioner also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on the appellants Mrs. Arte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that firm, at the relevant time. That order has become final against their firm M/s. Kan Karan Impex. 7. Penalty had been imposed on the appellants on account of they being partners of the firm at the relevant time and on the basis of their role in the fraudulent claim of drawback by their firm, as is evident from the impugned order. 8. So far as the role of appellants Mrs. Artee Chauhan and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Avtar Singh Chauhan. We also do not find any other material on record to indicate the involvement of these two appellants in the transaction of fraudulent claim of drawback by the firm M/s. Kan Karan Impex. Therefore, in our view, no penalty could be imposed on the appellants Mrs. Artee Chauhan and Avtar Singh Chauhan for the simple reason that they were partners of the firm when there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
