9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld liable for the Act committed by Mr. Hotkar who was not an employee of the appellant firm. Moreover, there is no corroborative evidence is brought on record by the department to prove that the appellant or their directors were in the knowledge of the act committed by Mr. Hotkar - action taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the appellant is harsh and without considering the true and correct facts - order of revocation of the appellant s CHA licence set aside – appeal allowed - C/1171/08 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2012 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for the appellant Shri Navneet, Addl.Comm (AR) for the respondent Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him for customs clearance with the help of Shri Hotkar; that all the work relating to M/s. Prime Textiles regarding Customs clearance were solely handled by Shri Hotkar; that the description in present/previous consignments was Polyester Fabrics/Polyester Fabric Embroidery; that it was only after approval from Shri Nalawade, one of the Directors of CHA s that the job of M/s. Prime Textile was taken up; that none of the Director of CHA or its employees were handling any work which was handled by Shri Hotkar; that Shri Hotkar was not having a customs pass and that he was not aware of change of samples in respect of referred Bill of Entry. 3. Therefore their licence was suspended on the ground that preventive section of JNPT has found the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also submitted that as the appellant is out of business since August 2008, therefore if at all any fault is found against the appellant, the punishment suffered by the appellant be deemed to be sufficient and the order of revocation of their licence be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the contention of the ld. advocate were controverted by the AR for the revenue and submitted that statements of the directors of the appellant firm were recorded under 108 of the Customs Act and same can form part of the proceedings. Therefore the charges against the appellant have been proved. Therefore impugned order is to be upheld. 6. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, we find that in this case proceedings under Regulation 22 of the CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
