9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... silamani and other 3 applicants. Considering the facts and circumstances and after hearing both sides, we direct the applicant S.Masilamani to deposit Rs.10,00,000 and Rs.1,00,000 each by Shri A. Senthilkumar, N. Senthilkumar and Shri R. Gopinathan within 6 weeks. However, since the Commissioner has already adjusted Rs.49,000/- against penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on Shri A. Senthilkumar, he is directed to deposit Rs.51,000 within six weeks. - stay granted partly. - C/106 to 109/12 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2013 - SHRI. P.K. DAS AND SHRI. MATHEW JOHN, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri J. Shankarraman, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, Jt. Commr. (AR) ORDER Per P.K. Das; 1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naments severally and jointly from K. Masilamani and other 28 passengers under Section 28 of the Customs Act along with interest. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs.60 lakhs on S. Masilamoni (Applicant No.2) and Rs.2 lakhs each on the other 3 applicants (Applicant No.1,3,4) herein and Rs.30,000/- each on the 26 passengers and Rs.12,000/- each on other two passengers. There is penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the six passengers arrived from Singapore. 3. The Ld. advocate submits that Sri K.Masilamani (Applicant No.2) is engaged in the business of cleaning glass bottlers. He submits that Shri A. Senthilkumar is brother-in-law of Shri Masilamani. Due to family disputes with A. Senthilkumar, he is victimized in this case. He further submits that stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Commissioner confirmed demand of duty jointly and severally on Masilamani and 28 passengers. In Para-88 of the order, the Commissioner has determined the duty liability on 28 passengers to Rs.43,71,778/- along with interest on each person. In our considered view that duty was determined only for 28 persons separately and therefore prima facie, demand of duty on Masilamani is not sustainable. However, we find force in the submission of Ld. AR on the imposition of penalty as three applicants (Applicant No.1,3,4) already admitted the offence which was merely retracted in reply to the show cause notice, cannot be acceptable. The department also proceeded on the basis of passengers phot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
