9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waiver of pre-deposit. Upon compliance the pre-deposit of balance dues shall be waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals. - Partial stay granted. - C/S/41566/2014 in C/41299/2014, C/S/41616/2014 in C/41348/2014, C/S/41617/2014 in C/41349/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2015 - R Periasami, Member (T) And P K Choudhary, Member (J) For the Appellant : Mr S Krishnanandh, Adv. Mr Arjit Chakrabarti, Adv For the Respondent : Mr K P Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER Per P K Choudhary M/s. J.P. Enterprises imported 6 consignments of paper and paper board through Haldia and 13 consignments through Chennai Port utilizing 5 Target Plus Licences in violation of provisions of the Target Plus Scheme and Customs Exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the provisions of Section 114A and 112 of the Customs Act on Shri Rajesh Gupta and on Shri Sushanta Kumar Chaudhuri under Section 112 of the Customs Act. On adjudication of the show cause notice, the Commissioner in respect of imports through Haldia Port confirmed the duty of ₹ 28,28.017.19 on Shri Rajesh Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. J.P. Enterprises along with interest and imposed equal penalty under the provisions of Section 114A of the Customs Act and penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- on Shri Sushanta Kumar Chaudhuri. In respect of imports through Chennai Port, he confirmed duty of ₹ 64,64,897.40 along with interest and imposed equal penalty on Shri Rajesh Gupta and imposed penalty of RS. 10,00,000/- on Shri Sushanta Kumar Chaudhu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Shri Rajesh Gupta and Sushanta Kumar Chaudhuri, they were issued notice for their non-appearance having posted on 07.05.2015. 4. Ld. Advocate representing Shri Rajesh Gupta and Shri Sushanta Kumar Chaudhuri appeared today in the stay applications. He submits that the adjudication order was passed in gross violation of natural justice as they sought for cross examination of the witnesses which was not allowed by the adjudicating authority. He also submits that there was no mention in the order why cross examination was not allowed when there was specific request from the appellant. He also submits that show cause notice was issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act invoking extended period on the allegation of fraud and the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
