9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Further investigations resulted in the seizure of 7000 kgs of imported polyester yarn at the premises of M/s. Kumar Fab sent by the appellant company and discovery of shortages at the appellant company s premises and also clandestine removal by the appellant company to other parties of such imported goods. (b) The diversion of non-duty paid imported goods was admitted by the Director of the appellant firm and corroborated by other traders who have purchased such goods. (c) The appellant s manufacturing unit, a 100% EOU is in Surat and comes under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I. (d) Show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad having jurisdiction over entire Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fines imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A on the appellant company. However, he has upheld the penalty imposed on the Director of the appellant company and other parties. 5. The present appeals are questioning the confiscation of 7000 Kgs of imported yarn clandestinely removed by the appellant company and received by Kumar Fab and also imposition of penalty on the Director of the appellant Company. 6. The learned Advocate for the appellants relies on the judgment, 2004 (174) E.L.T. 25 (CESTAT-LB) Godrej Soaps Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai and submits that a composite show cause notice issued by an officer who is not competent to issue should be treated as ab initio void and all actions taken i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffences which are within the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner who has adjudicated the case. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. The combined show cause notice cannot be held invalid totally merely on the ground that the officer who has issued the show cause notices do not have jurisdiction in respect of one of the matters involved. I find the order in the case of Godrej Soaps case is distinguishable in facts. It was a case of demand of duty, confiscation, penalty relating to one single party and the foundation for proposal of penalty and confiscation was based on proposal for demand of short levy/non-levy. When the foundation did not survive it was natural that the consequent actions of confiscation, penalty were h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
