9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport of newsprint. He was the sole purchaser of the entire quantity of impugned newsprint imported and as he has been dealing in the newsprint for a considerable period of time, he was fully aware that the impugned newsprint was imported at concessional rate of duty on actual user condition. - Mr. M L Gupta, proprietor of the two appellants abetted the smuggling of impugned goods which were liable to confiscation and was purchasing the said newsprint imported at concessional rate of duty. Thus, the appellants are clearly liable to penalty - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Appeal Nos.C/209 & 210/2009-CU[DB] - Final Order Nos.52549-52550/2015 - Dated:- 29-7-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President And Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame of M/s Jai Sai Times in Karur Vysya Bank, Karol Bagh and the signed chequebooks were handed over to Sh. Moovandan; that one Chartered Accountant sent by Sh. Moovandan had come with him that day who could tell about the import of goods; that he had not placed any order for any import; that he had nothing to do with the imported consignments. 3. When the case was called for hearing, the advocate on record stated that he had no instructions to appear. Thus, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. In the Memorandum of Appeals, the appellants have contended that they are not the importers and therefore no customs duty is payable by the appellants and that they have also not abetted any evasion and therefore no penalty is imposable on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally to meet the orders placed on M/s. Jai Sai Times and their sister firms M/s. Seva Times by two firms of Sh. M.L. Gupta, i.e., M/s. Shivam Newsprint Agency and M/s K. Shyam International. It is further observed that Sh. M.L. Gupta had at one point of time agreed to pay the differential duty worked out in respect of consignments that were purchased by his firms from M/s Jai Sai Times who had wrongly availed the benefit of exemption notification. Sh. M.L. Gupta indeed made payments of ₹ 28 lakhs towards discharge of the differential duty liability. Although I do not find any direct and clinching evidence on record to indicate that it was Sh. M.L. Gupta or his firms who played any active role in fraudulent procurement of RNI certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962. Held accordingly. 6. No demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellants. Only penalty is imposed upon them. Their contention that the penalty imposed is beyond the Show Cause Notice because there was no allegation of abetment against them in the Show Cause Notice, is factually not correct in-as-much-as the Show Cause Notice brings out their role and required them to show cause as to why they should not be penalised under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. The impugned goods were imported at the behest of the proprietor of the appellants. The fact that the proprietor of the appellants paid ₹ 28 lakhs towards differential duty when he was not even the importer on paper also shows their involvement in the modus op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
