9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the penalties imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 2. According to the Revenue, the appellants had participated in the commissioning of the fraud by signing the applications for DEPBs in respect of Shipping Bill Nos. 33 dated 3-1-2000; 6728 dated 25-7-2000; 7248 dated 7-8-2000; 4739 dated 17-12-1999; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er are eloquent enough to depict the role played by these appellants : 25. I find that Shri Ashok Kumar @ Lucky (Noticee No. 3) was looking after all the business operations of the Noticee No. 2 including exports and foreign exchange. During investigations he admitted that the Bank certificates of Exports Realization had been signed by him and that these were forged. He also felt sorry for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds Sh. Tara Singh (Noticee No. 4) was looking after raw material and production of the firm. He was also looking after purchase of raw material and making arrangement of labour. I further observe that Sh. Yogesh Kumar (Noticee No. 6) was a partner of the firm. He was running a shop in the name and style of M/s LOOKS, Jalandhar. The Noticee No. 4 and 6 were party to profits/loss incurred to the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondent-assessee did not commit any fraud, as alleged. Correctness of the findings that the transferee, M/s Shiraj International Company Limited did not commit any fraud, having obtained DEPB without notice of the fraud, is not in question. Merely because penalty has not been imposed on the transferee on that ground, it is no ground to treat the respondent at par with the said transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Parker Industries, (supra), which was not brought to the notice of the Court deciding Appeal No. C/579/06, it would appear that the imposition of penalties on the appellants, whose dubious role in obtaining the DEPB licenses on the strength of forged documents was established, is justified, and the concurrent findings of the authorities below warrant no interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
