9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant company made by the department revealed that polyester fibre did not reach the factory premises. Shri Sushil Sharma had knowledge about non receipt of the goods in the factory. It was noticed by the Tribunal that since the appellant was fully involved in the affairs of the company, his role could not be ruled out in causing loss of duty to the customs. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from ₹ 6 lacs to ₹ 2 lacs in case of the appellant - appellant has not been able to show that the said findings are illegal, perverse or erroneous in any manner. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises - Decided against appellant. - Customs Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) had given no findings with regard to involvement of appellant in the offence and order in original was passed ex parte within two and half months of issuance of show cause notice? vi) Whether penalty can be imposed arbitrarily under section 112(b) of Customs Act in absence of corroboration or evidence? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant was Assistant Commercial Manager of M/s Fashion World International, Ludhiana, which is a partnership firm registered as 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) in terms of various provisions of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002 issued by the Government of India. It is engaged in the manufacture and expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ually received in the factory. Penal action was proposed against M/s Fashion World International under section 112(a)/114 of the Act. In addition, penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act was also proposed against the appellant. The appellant received the said notice without relied upon documents. Therefore, it was not possible for the appellant to file reply. The respondent passed ex parte order dated 23.3.2007, Annexure A.1 imposing penalty of Rs. 6 lacs against the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Act. No statement of the appellant was recorded. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Act. Vide order dated 28.3.2008, Annexure A.2, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2003 showing his official involvement in the customs and central excise documentation and the matter relating thereto. His involvement in export and import of M/s Fashion World International came to record. Since concern of the appellant has come to record, there shall be no option but to penalize this appellant. As the goods have already undergone the process of confiscation, looking into para 3.5 of the adjudication order read with para 10 of the show cause notice it can be inferred that this appellant was also aware of the activities of the company alongwith Shri Harbhajan Singh Sandhu. His role could not be ruled out in causing loss of duty made to Customs. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
