9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation of delay in view of difficulties of his Counsel and also his own health problem and prayed the Tribunal for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. In support of his claim, he also filed an affidavit sworn by him and another by his Counsel. The fact stated in the application was corroborated by the affidavit. The ld. Counsel further prayed that in view of huge demand against the Appellant, he shall suffer if the Appeal is not admitted for reason beyond control of the Appellant to seek remedy in time. Therefore, he earnestly prayed that the Appellant may not be deprived of justice for the technical breach of law when there was no intention at all to make any delay. He submitted that this application is bona fide and the Appellant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 117 of the Act. 1.5 The fourth Appellant i.e. Smt. Bharati Sen in Cus. Appeal Case No. 173/07 has faced penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. On the basis of evidence gathered by Revenue, statements recorded in the course of the proceeding, submissions made by the Appellants before the Authority below, consideration of reply made to Show Cause Notice dated 12-12-2005 and upon evaluation of evidence, the learned Adjudicating Authority found that the first appellant without actually effecting export of imitation Jewellery (Bangles made of brass), claimed duty drawback of Rs. 24,39,500 in respect of five Bills of Exports with the help of other appellants defrauding Revenue and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Therefore pre-deposit may not be insisted during pendancy of appeals. 4.1 Learned JDR Sri Loni appearing on behalf of Revenue pleaded that investigation was conducted thoroughly and entire evidence gathered during that stage were minutely examined by the Authority below. Appellants were granted fair opportunity of hearing. Their reply to Show Cause Notice and submissions made in the course of hearing were thoroughly examined. First appellant misled investigation leading false and fabricated evidence and mala fide of all the appellants came to record. 4.2 Sri Loni also submitted that all the appellants colluded and their mischief resulted in illegal claim of duty drawback. Such claim is not permissible in absence of actual export of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Packings, 4646B Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-6 and not M/s. New Delhi Trade Linkers. Subsequently, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit conducted necessary enquiries with both the above suppliers i.e. M/s. National Packings M/s. New Delhi Trade Linkers and it was found that no firm in the name style of M/s. New Delhi Trade Linkers at E329, East of Kailash, New Delhi-65 ever existed and the said premises was owned by one existence of the firm named M/s. New Delhi Trade Linkers at E329, East of Kailash, New Delhi-65 was also corroborated by Shri Bhalla in his Letter dated 20-12-04. The DRI officers also unearthed the address of M/s. National Packing as 4646, inside Azmeri Gate, Delhi-6 not at 4646B, Azmeri Gate. By a letter dated 13-12-04 Shri Parash Gupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Kishore with the mala fide intention for availing duty drawback without effecting any physical export of the goods. Sri Nand Kishore had helped and assisted Shri Khanna in making/preparing fabricated export documents and abetting him to avail the duty drawback fraudulently in violation of Section 50(2) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 75 ibid. Therefore, Sri Nand Kishore, being the person concerned, is liable to penal action under Section 117 of CA 62. Sri Khanna had claimed that the subject goods were transported from Kolkata to Burimari (Bangladesh) by transporter viz. M/s. Bajrangbali Roadways. From the voluntary statement dated 10-12-2002 of Shri Yograj Kedia of M/s Bajrangbali Roadways, it revealed that they only supplied bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e third Appellant is only legal heir of his deceased father against whom charge was made and the present appellant was inculpated falsely having no interest or nexus to the offence alleged. He being stranger should not be punished. However, veracity shall be subject to evidence and verification by Revenue which shall be looked into in the course of regular hearing. 5.6 We have been noticing that all the Appellants faced similar charges as in this case in some of the following appeals noted against Appellants Present Appeal Case No. Other Appeal Case Nos. Fist Appellant 216/07 217/07 Second Appellant 149/07 148/07, 20/2008, 147/07 Third Appellant 214/07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
