9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, 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. In view of the above, we find that appellant has no prima facie case. Decided against the appellant. - Customs Stay Application No.71 of 2012, Appeal No.4 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2014 - Archana Wadhwa And Rakesh Kumar,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Prabhat Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Jain, Authorized Representative (DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant for confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the call centre was set up in February and March 2006 and the imports were made during the said period. The said call centre was set up by one Shri Jaswant Pujari, NRI with another Director Shri Manoj Tripathy. As the call centre required a local Director, the appellant was made the third Director. He submits that the appellant resigned from the Directorship in May 2006 and left India in July, 2006 itself. Thereafter he was in Bahrain for about three years and subsequently came back to India. All these developments show that the appellant was not involved in the fraud committed by the company. He submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was closed, the rented premises were vacated and all the Directors went away from India so as to not to be caught by the officers. It is only when another company applied for approval of the said premises as warehouse and requested the officers to visit the same, the fraud played by the company came to the notice of Revenue. 6. Learned Advocate has also drawn our attention to various precedent decisions to emphasis on his plea that being a Director of the company, itself would not invite for penal action unless there is a direct proof as regards his active role in committing the fraud. 7. We are aware of the law on the issue of imposition of penalty on the Director. However, the facts of each case have to be considered and it is the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
