9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crore, therefore, does not warrant interference Regarding the deposit an amount of Rs.25 lakhs - Appellants submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not decide the question as to whether a penalty can be imposed on a partner of the firm when a penalty has already been imposed on the firm - Therefore, the ends of justice would be subserved if the order directing the Second Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.25 lakhs is modified and the requirement of predeposit is waived in so far as the Second Appellant is concerned - Accordingly dispose of this appeal by modifying the order of the Tribunal to the extent to which the Second Appellant has been called upon to deposit an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29 April 2011 allowed the application in part and directed the First Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.1 crore within a period of four weeks. The Second Appellant was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. An order of waiver of deposit was passed as against the other two partners of the firm on the ground that they had not played an active role in the transaction. However, in so far as the Second Appellant is concerned, the Tribunal did not order of complete waiver. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the Second Appellant that once a penalty has been imposed on the firm, no penalty can be separately imposed on its partners. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has sought a waiver of predeposit on the ground that a prima facie case was made out. Before this Court, no submission has been urged on the ground of financial hardship. The submissions on merits are: (i)The judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) was cited before the Tribunal and submissions on the basis thereof were recorded in paragraph 4 of the order of the Tribunal. However, while assigning its reasons, the Tribunal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the bill of export or the shipping bill is incorrect lies on the revenue. Once the transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected, the value must be determined by sequentially proceeding through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules of 1988. In the case before the Supreme Court, instead of first determining the value of the goods on the basis of contemporaneous exports of identical goods, the Revenue had resorted to a market enquiry which was held to be erroneous. The Supreme Court held that if the data of contemporaneous exports of identical goods was not available, the procedure laid down in Rules 5 to 8 was required to be followed and a market enquiry could be conducted only as a last resort. 10. The contention of the Appellants is that though the decision of the Supreme Court was relied upon and was cited in paragraph 4 while recording the submissions of the Appellants, it has not been dealt with in the reasons of the Tribunal. We are inclined, at the present stage, to accept the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Revenue that on a fair reading of the judgment of the Tribunal the decision of the Supreme Court has been considered. After adverting to the submission of the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oming. 11. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, we are of the view that no case has been made out for the grant of a complete waiver of the requirement of predeposit. Prima facie, at this stage, it does emerge that the Bank realization certificates on the basis of which the DEPB benefit has been claimed were found to be forged in large measure. The contention of the Appellants is that subsequent to the order passed by the Commissioner and during the pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, they produced the remittance certificates from the Union Bank of India in support of their contention that monies were in fact received. Admittedly, the remittance certificates were not produced before the Commissioner. The authenticity of the certificates is still to be verified and the question as to whether the certificates pertain to the very same transaction would have to be ascertained. The fact remains that at present, the statement of the Bank official recorded under Section 108 is that the Bank realization certificates that were produced were not genuine. 12. The Tribunal, in our view, has furnished adequate reasons in support of the order of pred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
