9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri Samir Chitkara, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. These 2 appeals arise out of the Commissioner s Order No. 20/MP/2001, dated 11-9-2001. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a) The main noticee M/s. Kharwar Fabrics have reportedly used about 8 kgs. of imported yarn for manufacture of 100 L. Mtrs. of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh on the Director of the appellant company. 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that they have procured the materials under CT-3 certificate and the AR-3As, the invoices received by them and D-3 declaration filed by them only referred to the fabrics in L. Mtrs. and did not refer to the alledged using 8 kgs. instead of 16 kgs. by the supplying unit. Thus they were not concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the rival submissions. The reasoning of the Commissioner for imposing penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act are reproduced below :- As discussed herein above, all the noticees in their statements recorded under section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 have confessed the unauthorized receipt of Grey Fabrics and yarn. They did not bother to o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that they were not questioning the confiscation or seeking release of the confiscated goods. They have not received any materials other than the goods which were absolutely confiscated. They have not been shown to be beneficiary in any way. In the light of above we hold that imposition of penalty on the appellant company and the Director of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
