9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal Nos. C/285-287/2000 - Final Order Nos. l68-l70/2007 - Dated:- 22-2-2007 - [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - M/s. Pro Video Services, the appellant in Appeal No C/287/2000, had imported a consignment of Monitors and V.G.A. Cards' from Malaysia and filed a Bill of Entry on 27-10-1999 for clearance of the goods. The declared value of the goods was not accepted by the Customs authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 114A of the Act and also imposed penalties of Rs. 25,000/- each on Shri R. Sivakumar (Partner of the assessee-firm) and Shri R. Krishnakumar, the broker, under Section 112(a) of the Act. The appeal filed by Shri R. Sivakumar, against the decision of the original authority was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. Hence the present appeals by M/s. Pro Video Services, Shri R. Siv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere should have been a demand of duty under sub-section 2 of Section 28 of the Customs Act, the quantum of which should have been determined in adjudication of a show-cause notice issued under Section 28(1) of the Act. In this case, no such notice was issued to the assessee. We have heard learned SDR also on this point. After a perusal of the penal provision, we find that the liability to pay pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of evidence of his having committed something or omitted to do something which rendered the goods liable for confiscation, such a penalty cannot be imposed on him. This contention is opposed by learned SDR on the strength of the findings contained in the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the confiscation of the goods is not under challenge. The goods were confiscated under clauses ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty under Section 112(a). In our considered view, the quantum of penalty imposed on Shri R. Sivakumar (Managing Partner) is just and fair. 5. In the result, Appeal No. C/285/2006 of Sh. Sivakumar gets dismissed and Appeal No. C/287/2006 is partly allowed, the penalty on the assessee having been vacated. The impugned order will stand modified to the above effect. (Dictated and pronounced in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
