9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere L/Rs were issued. Endorsement on the back of the shipping bills proved forgery of signature of Customs Officials. All bills of lading were also forged. There was no material or cogent evidence on record to show that the ground of appeal have any merit. Except the only plea that the appellant exported the readymade garments under proper invoice recorded in ARE-1 showing termination of the goods at Haldia port there was nothing on record to show manufacture of goods, transportation thereof and actual export. Forging of signature of customs officer surfaced and that was not contradicted by appellant. Such evidence proves malafide of appellant - appeal dismissed - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No.E/3480/2005, Appeal No.E/3481/2005, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt finding made by learned adjudicating authority in para 38 at page 81 of adjudication order reads as under: In view of the above, I hold that the goods valued at ₹ 6,10,45,200/- cleared under the strength of ARE-I No.1 to 24 all dated 24.01.2002 to Haldia were not exported from Halidia port in as much as the noting on shipping bills were taken after the clearance of said goods from the factory, yet the ARE-I numbers were not mentioned on the shipping bills in most cases; that the bill of lading connected to export goods/shipping bills were found issued on 30.01.2002 and 01.02.2002 by the shipping agency/line i.e. before the noting on the shipping bills at Customs House Kolkata. Yet the shipping bill number were menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments in the department as a proof of export and thus involved themselves in export fraud. The said goods valued at ₹ 6,10,45,200/- cleared from the factory have been diverted to the DTA without payment of duty amounting to ₹ 3,83,75,454/-. The Noticee No.1 have also contravened the provisions of earlier Rules 4, 5, 6,8,10, 11, 12 and 19 of Central Excise (No.2) Rules 2001 and provision of notification No.42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001. I hold that there was intention of Noticee No.1 to evade payment of duty by way of fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts and therefore liable for imposition of mandatory penalty. I also Propose to invoke/enforce the Bond-17 (Now B-1) submitted by Noticee No.1 under Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported the readymade garments under proper invoice recorded in ARE-1 showing termination of the goods at Haldia port there was nothing on record to show manufacture of goods, transportation thereof and actual export. Forging of signature of customs officer surfaced and that was not contradicted by appellant. Such evidence proves malafide of appellant. Accordingly appeal of the company of Dewas Fabrics Ltd. is dismissed. 7. Learned Adjudicating authority has also brought out active involvement of both appellants in Appeal No.E/3481/2005 and E/3482/2005. Both directors could not keep aloof themselves from the fraud designed by the appellant. Oral evidence gathered supported by documentary evidence successfully proved that these appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
