TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Singh, JJ. Shri Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Pradeep Jain, Saurabh Kapoor and Rishab Kapoor, Advocates, for the Respondent. This order shall dispose of CUSAP Nos. 8, 9 and 11 of 2014 as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical. CUSAP Nos. 9 and 11 of 2014 relate to M/s. S.K. Petrochem, whereas CUSAP No. 8 of 2014 pertains to M/s. Golden Enterprises. However, the facts are being extracted from CUSAP No. 9 of 2014. 2. CUSAP No. 9 of 2014 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the Act ) against the order, dated 24-7-2013 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Golden Enterprises, A-63, Deepak Vihar, Vikash Nagar, New Delhi. Acting on the above intelligence, searches were conducted on 28-1-2013 by the officers of DRI at the residential premises of Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta, declared to be the proprietor of M/s. S.K. Petrochem situated at A.20, Milap Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. During the search, various incriminating documents, digital devices were recovered from the premises of Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta. During another enquiry, the officers of the Customs Preventive Commissionerate Delhi searched the premises of M/s. S.K. Petrochem on 29-8-2013 and drawn a panchnama on the spot. As per the panchnama, no firm by the name of M/s. S.K. Petrochem existed there and further that they used to be at that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed. The respondent then filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal vide order, dated 24-7-2013 (Annexure A-2) directing the release of the goods provisionally subject to the deposit of 20% differential duty as sought to be assessed by the department and upon execution of bond for full proposed value of the consignment. Hence, the present appeals by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had erred in ordering the release of goods on payment of 20% of the differential duty and had completely waived the condition of furnishing bank guarantee equal to the full value of the seized goods which was taken at US $ 940 PMT. According to the learned counsel, the respondent was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kesh s) firm i.e. M/s. S.K. Petrochem; that Shri Jeevan Jain used to get the goods cleared from Customs and their further sale, and that he (Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta) had no control over the goods imported using the name of his firm M/s. S.K. Petrochem; that all the work related to transport, clearance etc. was looked after by Shri Jeevan Jain only; that he had not fixed any remuneration from Shri Jeevan Jain; however he used to receive ₹ 15,000/- to ₹ 20,000/- for allowing import in the name of his firm. This statement was subsequently retracted by Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta on 21-2-2013, yet its evidentiary value cannot be denied as the retraction was an afterthought based clearly on legal advice which was countered by DRI on 1-3- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of M/s. Golden Enterprises in connected appeal i.e. CUSAP No. 8 of 2014. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee had produced statement of bank account and also income tax return where taxable income of only ₹ 1,95,000/- has been declared. It, thus, prima facie, appears that the matter regarding genuineness of the transactions and also the existence of the respondents is required to be examined before imposing condition for the release of the goods. 7. Accordingly, while setting aside the order, dated 24-7-2013, Annexure A.2, we remit the matter to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties in accordance with law. It is further directed that the Tribunal shall make sincere efforts for adjudicating the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|