9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is employees – appellant admitted that he was working for Shri Rajesh Bhasin(employer) but there is no evidence that he has been benefited with the fraud or he is party to the fraud – penalty not imposable - C/401/2007-SM(BR) - 265/2008-SM(BR)/(PB), - Dated:- 15-1-2008 - Shri S.S. KANG, Vice-president [Order].-1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority passed the present impugned order. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the penalty is imposed on the ground that appellant was close associate of Shri Rajesh Bhasin who is king pin of the fraud. In this case, the various non-existent firms run by Shri Rajesh Bhasin exported the goods by mis-declaring the value as well as description of goods to obtain higher drawback. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iated with Shri Rajesh Bhasin. On this allegation, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that in this case huge amount of drawback has been claimed by the exporter by exporting poor quality of readymade garments. The address of the companies was given in the bank account and other documents of the places which were taken on rent by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for him. In the adjudication order, the case of the Revenue is that Shri Rajesh Bhasin was the chief architect of this fraud, in obtaining IEC code for these firms, filing up account opening forms, affixing photographs of persons known to him, his relatives, his employees, people working for him. The appellant admitted that he was working for Shri Rajesh Bhasin but there is no evidence that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
