9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -deposit of amounts of penalties imposed under Section 114(i) and Section 114 AA of the Customs Act 1962. Sr. No. Stay Petition No. Appellant Amount of Penalties under Sec. 114(i) Rs Amount of Penalties under Sec. 114(AA) Rs 1 C/S/13920/2013 Shri Vijay Singh Gohil 5,45,92,041/- 5,45,92,041/- 2 C/S/14095/2013 Shri Chhaganlal Arun 1,00,00,000/- 1,00,00,000/- 3 C/S/10485/2014 Shri Arupam Krishi 54,92,041/- 54,92,041/- 4 C/S/10637/2014 M/s Classic Freight Forwarders 25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- 5 C/S/10638/2014 M/s Ashoka Salt Refinery Industries 5,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 2. All the above said penalties have been imposed by the adjudicating authorities on the appellants as stated herein above on the ground that all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployee of CHA was earning only Rs. 6000/- and had in good faith signing the documents relating to the export. He would submit that the appellant had not gained anything from the transactions of export of MOP as something else. 5. Shri Hardik Modh(Adv.) appearing on behalf of Shri Anupam Krishi would submit that he is a registered dealer of fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Act and was authorised by the Govt. of India, to purchase and sell MOP to the authorised dealers and also to the individual farmers. It is his submission that the role attributed by the appellant by the adjudicating authority is erroneous as the appellant had invoiced the MOP to individual farmers who had come to purchase MOP from him. He would submit that once th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of all the appellants herein above. It is his submission that the appellants herein had colluded together to defend the legitimate farmers on their right to use good fertilizer in the farming. He would submit that the invoices which were produced for purchasing of fertilizer were used for export of MOP which is banned. He would then take us through the role attributed by the adjudicating authority to all the appellants. 9. All the counsel would rely upon the stay order passed by this Bench in the case of M/s Kailaspati Chemical and Mineral industries - S/2462-2470/WZB/AHD/2012 dtd 21.11.2012 Order No. M/10226-10236/WZB/AHD/2013 dtd 19.12.2012 and Order No. S/2502-2506/WZB/AHD/2012 dt 3.12.2012. 10. We considered the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er need to be considered in depth with the evidences which have been relied upon to come to a final conclusion. In the stay order which was produced before us, we find that every role was analysed by us and considered while disposing the stay petitions. In this case we find that the role attributed to every appellant before us prima facie seems to be an activity which is performed for contravention of the provisions of Customs Act 1962. 13. Thus is our prima facie view, the issue needs to be gone into detail and it can be done at the time of final disposal of appeals. In our considered view individual role played by each of appellant herein needs to be examined vis-a-vis the evidence on record which would take lot of time and not required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
