9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Javali, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri Pradeep Gaonkar and V.Y. Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : N. Kumar, J.]. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal, appellate authority and the assessing authority, holding him liable to pay duty, interest and penalty. 2. The appellant Ramesh Solanki is the Managing Director of a Company known as M/s. Labdhi Computech Pvt. Ltd. Which is engaged in the business of trading in computer parts and accessories. One Praveen is the proprietor of M/s. Suntech. which is a unit registered with Sales Tax Authorities as well as holder of import Export Code. In pursuance of the investigation conducted against Mr. Praveen the Customs Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962 of various persons connected with these transactions such as one Venugopal, Subramanya Sharma, G.S. Shekar Rao, Praveen, G.B. Kumara Swamy and Narendra and Girish. The authorities after considering the statement of objection held that Ramesh Solanki be treated as actual importer in respect of the goods imported vide bill of entry No. 365754 dated 27-9-2002 in the name of M/s. Suntech, Bangalore, the said goods were misdeclared and they were liable for confiscation an amount of Rs. 10,37,509.00 was levied as customs duty and a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000.00 was imposed. 3. Aggrieved by the said order. the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on reappreciation of the entire material on record taking note of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary to Section 2(26) of Customs Act? (7) Whether the Respondent and the Tribunal were right in holding that the Appellant was the Proprietor of Suntech on the basis of third party opinions recorded in the statement which was not corroborated by any evidence and contrary to Section 2(26) of Customs Act? (8) Whether the Tribunal was right at law in holding the Appellant as the Importer in the background at the order of the Tribunal in C.101/2003, dated 31-1-2004 which was binding on the Department? (9) Whether the Tribunal was right in law for having passed an order contradictory to the order in C.No. 101/2003, dated 31-1-2004? (10) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in disregarding the observations of the Tribunal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a clear case of mis-declaration, non-declaration and over declaration and under valuation of the goods consigned to M/s. Suntech. in respect of consignment received from M/s. Guru Electronic, Singapore is made out. 7. Mr. Praveen, though styled himself as proprietor of M/s. Suntech in fact was an employee of the appellant. The finding recorded by two fact finding authority is fully supported by the legal evidence on record. It is purely a question of fact. The finding recorded by the tow authorities is legal and proper and do not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference from us. In the light of what is stated above the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In that vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
