9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnational Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, were attempting to export garments in the grab of export/non-export claiming the same to be as ladies garments. The case was booked against the said Sweety International Pvt. Ltd. along with the CHA viz. M/s. Air Travel Enterprises. After detailed examination and conclusion of the proceedings, the goods were declared more than 3.21 crores and were ordered to be confiscated and released on RF of Rs. 25 lakhs. M/s. Sweety International was imposed with a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs and the CHA viz. M/s. Air Travel Enterprises with penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs with separate penalties on individuals including the appellant on the ground that he has colluded with the exporters and thereby brought loss to the Revenue. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signatures said to have been done by him on the Shipping Bills. He submits that there was no cause for him to sign the Shipping Bills as these shipping Bills were never produced in his Range and there was separate Range Superintendent for the place where the exports took place. The evidence against him is not sufficient to uphold the charge of collusion and abatement in terms of Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. He submits that this Bench, after due consideration of the documents on record in the appeal filed by the CHA M/s. Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd. by Final Order No. 1996/2006, dated 29-11-2006 has been set aside the order imposing penalty for lack of evidence. He submits that this order clearly applies to the facts of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allegation against the appellant. Furthermore, the appeal of the CHA i.e. M/s. Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd. has been allowed by Final Order No. 1996/2006, dated 29-11-2006 by holding that the Revenue has failed to establish the case with evidence. The findings recorded in paras 2 to 4 is reproduced herein below. "2. The appellants contended that they were not responsible for the evasion of duty committed by the said party in violation of export obligation of advance licence and DEEC book. They contended that Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked as they have not played any role in abetting the offence. The Commissioner has noted that one Shri Cibi P.A. attached to the appellant's office was actively involved in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Veritas v. CC, Mumbai - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 688 (T) (ix) P.B. Nair C & F Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 831. 3. The learned JCDR reiterated the departmental view. 4. On a careful consideration, we notice that there is practically no evidence produced by the investigating agency against the appellants. Neither the Commissioner has examined the issue in depth nor has he disclosed the evidence against the appellant. One Shri Cibi P.A, Representative of appellant said to have appeared for clearing the goods but he has not been nabbed nor statement recorded nor evidence against him was collected. Therefore, in absence of any evidence or any finding against the appellant, the appellants cannot be charged under Section 114 of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
