9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 44.71 crores approximately against M/s Infocall Solutions Private Limited and has imposed penalty upon them as also upon other persons, who were Directors of the said call centre, we are informed that the other appellants have not filed any appeals. 2. Accordingly we have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Sanjay Jain, DR, for the respondent. It is seen that the appellant was a Director of M/s Infocall Solutions Private Limited, which was set up as a call centre as 100% EOU, Under the scheme for import of the capital goods by 100% EOUs, various capital goods were imported free of duty. 3. As a result of investigation, Revenue found that the said call c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to grant a warehousing certificate for the said premises and to visit the said premises, it was found that the said premises stand already vacated by the present call centre. Inquiries made from the landlord revealed that the said premises were taken on rent for the period 01/09/05 to 30/05/06 only i.e. for a period of about 8 months. The landlord further informed that the said premises were vacated before May 2006, as intimated by the company through E-mail dated 01/06/06. As such, it is clear that when the premises were vacated by M/s Infocall Solutions Private Limited, the appellant was admittedly the Director of the said company and as per the documents placed on record, resigned from the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no intention to conduct the business of running a call centre for a longer period. All the three Directors including the appellant and the NRI Director joined hands for duty free imports, which were to be cleared subsequently to the domestic market. We also note that the evidence procured on record by the Revenue reveals the fact that the company was closed and the premises were vacated in May 2006 itself and the subsequent resigning of the present Director in May, 2006 and leaving India in July, 2006 i.e. subsequent to the completion of the fraud was by a malafide design. 8. In view of the above, we find that the appellant has no prima facie case. We further note that neither the company against whom the demand has been confirmed nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
