9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice and therefore, the said case law could not apply herein - It is noted that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Board of Excise and Customs made Regulations, 1998. In the present case, it is seen that the penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant filed the Bill of Entry under fictitious names which is within the purview of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Penalty reduced in each case - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - C/340, 341/2012 - FINAL ORDER No.40463-40464/2013 - Dated:- 15-7-2013 - Shri P.K. Das, J. For the Appellant: Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Adv., For the Respondent: Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao, DC (AR) JUDGEMENT Common issue involved i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.05.2010 was issued proposing imposition of penalty to the appellants. He submits that the penalties are liable to set aside primarily on the ground that no allegation was made against the appellants in the purported show cause notice. He relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 1997 (94) ELT 9 (S.C.). He further submits that the findings of the original authority for imposition of penalty are beyond the show cause notice. He further submits that without prejudice, the penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant has not taken authorisation, in violation under the Courier Imports and Exports (clearance) Regulations, 1998. There is no penal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also admitted that Mr. Prasad has not given any authorisation letter to him for clearing the consignments through customs. On investigation, it was found that in both the cases, the letters issued by the Customs to the Consignees were returned back as incomplete address and Not known . It is clearly evident that the appellant had filed Airway Bills to clear the consignments but, did not obtain any authorisation from the consignees. This fact was not disputed by the Ld. Advocate. The main contention of the Ld. Advocate is that filing of the Airway Bills and Bill of Entry with authorisation is covered under the Courier Imports and Exports (clearance) Regulations, 1998. Therefore, the penalty cannot be imposed under the Customs Act. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
