9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant namely Ismail Mohd & Sons, a CHA firm and ARM Faiyaz, the partner of the firm have filed these appeals against the impugned order imposing penalties under Customs Act, 1962. 2. By the impugned order penalties have been imposed on the appellant on the charge that they did not act as clearing house agent but facilitated impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are not liable for any penalty. Moreover, the Commissioner while imposing the penalty on the partner ARM Faiyaz has imposed 114A and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 114A of the Act. As under Section 114A, penalty can be imposed only against the person who is liable to pay duty and apparently in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t find any corroborative evidence that the act of undervaluation and misdeclaration has been admitted at the behest of the CHA apart from confessional statement dated 09.05.02 of Shri Sailesh Vagadia. 6. During the course of argument the AR has brought our attention to some of the statements of co-noticees and from the statements of the co-noticees we find that the act of the CHA by producing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not leviable and if penalty under Section 114A has been imposed no penalty under Section 112 can be imposed on the partner. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the partner Shri ARM Faiyaz in the facts of this case. Therefore penalty on Shri ARM Faiyaz is dropped. In these above terms, appeals are disposed of.
(Operative part pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
