9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either of the lower authorities has brought out anything to connect any of such goods with the appellant. The 'finding' against the appellant has to be discerned from para 18 of the Orders-in-Original. However, no finding relevant to section 112(a) of the Customs Act is so discernible. As regards the Orders-in-Appeal, the state of affairs is worse inasmuch as the appellant has been held liable for penalty merely on the basis of his statement dated 29.5.2003. We have perused this statement also, but we have not found any material therein which would show that, by some commission / omission or abetment, he rendered any of the goods in question liable for confiscation under section111. It is also pertinent to note that his involvement in relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of even date, the original authority had imposed a penalty of ₹ 1.50 lakhs on the appellant and the same was reduced to ₹ 75,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the facts stated to have been admitted by the appellant were retracted. Therefore, there was no evidence against the appellant for levy of penalty. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions:- (a) Collector of Customs, Madars Vs. Rotumal Bherumal 2000 (126) ELT 199 (Mad.) (b) Badaku Joti Svant Vs. State of Mysore 1978 (2) ELT J323 (SC) (c) Trilok Chand Jain Vs. State of Delhi AIR 1977 SC 666 (d) State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Mathew Anr. AIR 1978 SC 1571 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. 4. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the penalties were imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. In order to penalize any person under this provision of law, it has to be found that, by way of some commission or omission or of abetment of such commission/ omission of another person, he rendered imported goods liable for confiscation under section 111 of the Act. On a scrutiny of the relevant show-cause notices, we find that goods which were allegedly smuggled into India were proposed to be confiscated under various provisions of section 111, but neither of the lower authorities has brought out anything to connect any of such goods with the appellant. The finding against the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
