9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person who abets it or commits such act, is also liable for payment of penalty. The goods in question were imported in the name of the firm by name M/s. Sri Ram Tex. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 811 of 2012 in his capacity as the partner abetted the firm to commit the offence. Therefore, the statutory authority was fully justified in imposing fine on the firm as well as on the partner. No substantial question of law arises - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. Nos. 811 & 812 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2012 (2 Nos.) - - - Dated:- 19-7-2012 - D. Murugesan and K.K. Sasidharan, JJ. Shri N. Chandrasekaran for N. Inbarajan, for the Appellant. ORDER These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the common order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged discrepancy. 4. The assessing authority thereafter passed an order, in and by which, the machineries were confiscated. The appellant was directed to pay a fine of ₹ 7 lakhs in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The original authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs on the appellant in C.M.A. No. 812 of 2012 and a sum of ₹ 1 lakh on the appellant in C.M.A. No. 811 of 2012. 5. The order passed by the original authority dated 7 June, 2004 was challenged before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner concurred with the views expressed by the original authority and confirmed the order. The appellate order dated 3 September, 2004 was challenged before CESTAT. The CESTAT found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was in violation of Para 2.17 of EXIM Policy 2002-07 and Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The machines were accordingly confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appellant was given an opportunity to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 8. It is true that the statutory authority imposed penalty on the firm as well as on the partner. The finding recorded by the original authority was confirmed in appeal. The legality and correctness of the order was once again tested by the CESTAT. The CESTAT being the final fact finding authority arrived at a conclusion that there was clinching evidence to show that the appellant imported the weaving looms by fabrica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
