9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly JUDGEMENT:- These two appeals filed by the appellant herein - viz: Mr. Lukas Folc and Mr. Sunil Rekhi, are directed against the Judgment dated 5 June 2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. 2. Mr. Lukas Folc is former Managing Director of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (in short "said Company") and Mr. Sunil Rekhi is also a form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of assessment and consequently the appeal as filed would not be maintainable. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has not raised any question of valuation of the goods for the purpose of assessment but the appellants have merely raised the question of penalty on the appellants who were employees of the said Company. Therefore, the appeals a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Learned Counsel further submits that Tribunal ought to have give separate reasons for upholding the imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act 1962 upon the present two appellants even while reducing the amount of penalty. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellants that a similar question of maintainabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Company has preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court in respect of the very order and it is the contention of the appellant that the issue is not pertaining either the rate of duty or valuation, we have admitted the appeals. These Appeals shall, however, be heard only after the Supreme Court decides Civil Appeal No (s). 6679 of 2013 preferred by the said Company against the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate that the revenue had raised the dispute about the valuation of the goods for the purpose of assessment in respect of an agreement entered into by the said Company commencing from a date three years prior to the appellants joining the said Company. Therefore, this was not a case for imposing penalty on the appellants. 12. In view of the last submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
