9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misdeclaration of the goods and nothing prejudiced interest of Revenue. Accordingly, penalty levied may be waived since the appellant was asked to make pre-deposit of rupees three lakhs in the course of stay hearing. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri Prem Ranjan submits that his client Shri Ashok Kumar Jha has no connection with the import nor concealment of the impugned goods was made under the cover of synthetic rubber SBR-1502. He had also not caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue. But he was unreasonably and unjustly penalised to the extent of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. 3. Ld. DR Shri Sansar Chand appearing for Revenue brings out the material facts relating to concealment of the offending goods under a very few quantity of synthetic rubber of SBR-150 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, he caused his appearance. Therefore there should be no leniency to these appellants when they were found with master mind to deceit Revenue. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. At page 43 of the Order-in-Original, ld. Commissioner has brought out that Bill of Entry No. 105930 dated 25th June, 03 has given rise to the cause of action against both the appellants, there was importation of small quantity of synthetic rubber SBR 1502. On 31st July, 2003, the DRI Authorities examined the container bearing No. MSKU 8059340 and MAEU 8205935 containing the impugned goods along with synthetic rubber. The examination revealed that 6,51,610 pcs. of bearings, 414 pairs of shoes and 2 Horse Lane Premium gold Plated dinner sets were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had Shri Rakesh Arora not been concerned or connected with M/s. A.U. International, he would not have opened the Bank Account. All these evidence establish that Shri Ajay Uppal was certainly a benamidar and for a remuneration of Rs. 6,000/- P.M. he was merely a name lender for the undisclosed principal Shri Rakesh Arora. There was nothing contradictory evidence brought to record by Shri Rakesh Arora for his defence. 7. The department had also considered evidence of Shri Ashok Kumar Jha. Shri Rakesh Arora failed to discard that evidence to get immunity from penalty. Shri Jha stated that M/s. A.U. International was a brain child of Shri Rakesh Arora. Also he stated that Shri Ajay Uppal was the conduit to deal under the name and style of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
