9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hushan of M/s.Efficient Exports against whom main charges were levelled. The Tribunal after detailed discussion, on the modus which was adopted by Shri Shashi Bhushan concluded that there was insufficient material to indicate the involvement of the respondent herein and except a one line statement of Shri Shashi Bhushan, there was no corroborative evidence leading to conclude the involvement and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent, who has dealt with the goods, which he knew were liable for confiscation, is not liable for imposition of penalty under section 112 of the said Act, or otherwise? We have heard learned counsel Ms.Amee Yajnik for the appellant and with her assistance examined the material on record. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: One Shri Shashi Bhush ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etor of M/s.Efficient Exports. The order in original dated 31.10.2000 confirmed the charges levelled and imposed penalty of Rs.25 lacs on Shri Mahesh Ganatra and Rs.1 crore on the present respondent Shri Ravi Mittal under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The said order came to be challenged before the CESTAT which made the order dated 4th April 2006. Aggrieved Revenue has preferred the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly based on the facts presented before it decided the issue. In case of one Shri Pravin Ahuja of M/s.Cosmo Plastic Exports Pvt. Ltd., penalty was imposed by the Commissioner in separate proceedings. Tribunal followed the findings rendered in his case as admittedly facts were identical. It was Shashi Bhushan in connivance with a licenced broker indulged into an act of defrauding department and henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
