9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department could also not produce any evidence to show that there was any collusion between the present Appellant and the exporter - even in the adjudication order, the only finding is that the supervisory officer cannot escape his liability. There is no evidence on record to show that there is any collusion between the present respondents and the exporter - penalty imposed on the Appellant is not sustainable X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned Order, the learned Commissioner had recorded that the Appellant being in charge of export was responsible to ensure that the goods were properly examined as per Bills of Export Declaration and Export Clearance effected, and the penalty had been imposed on him for contravention of the provisions of Section 50(2) and Section 75 of the said Act by alleging his involvement in abetting Shri Santosh Agarwal, Proprietor of the exporter, M/s. Radhika Exports to avail duty drawback fraudulently by way of giving false declaration. The contention is that this was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The contention is that at the material time, the Appellant was in charge of documentation and assessment of Bills of Export. He was not respons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal v. Arun Chakraborty and Others vide Order No. A-490-494/KOL/09 dated 13-8-2009 [2009 (248) E.L.T. 530 (Tribunal)] 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner. 5. We have perused the records and considered the submissions. We find that the show cause notice was issued against the Appellant proposing imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. We agree with the contention of the Appellant that the provisions contravened by the Appellant, were not spelt out in the show cause notice, and therefore the impugned Order for imposition of the penalty on the Appellant invoking the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods, at the material time. The learned Commissioner's finding that the Appellant was involved in abetting the Proprietor of M/s. Radhika Exports to avail duty drawback fraudulently, is without any basis and evidence. The Department could also not produce any evidence to show that there was any collusion between the present Appellant and the exporter. This Tribunal in the case of Arun Chakraborty and Others (supra) at Para 4 held as under :- "4. Further I find that even in the adjudication order, the only finding is that the supervisory officer cannot escape his liability. There is no evidence on record to show that there is any collusion between the present respondents and the exporter. In the circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
