9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2012, contending that M/s. Lubecon Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., was issued with a show cause notice, dated 18-10-2011, for violation relating to undervaluation and misdeclaration, while importing Base Oil classifiable under CTH 2710 19 60. The show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,36,24,505/-. The said importer filed an application, before the Settlement Commission, along with five other co-applicants/co-noticees, including the Managing Director of the Company. 3. In these cases, it is relevant to note that one Mr. Zahroorul Huq was the third applicant before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission, by order, dated 24-8-2012, settled the issue by demanding duty on the goods imported and by directi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne and penalty and the Commission had exonerated the other co-applicants, including Mr. Zahroorul Huq. The petitioner/company pleaded that since co-applicants, in the earlier case, have been exonerated and full immunity has been granted, the petitioner should also be given full immunity. The Commission took into consideration the submission and observed that Mr. Zahroorul Huq is a 'H' card holder, conducted activities relating to documentation, etc., and relating to clearance of imported consignment mentioned in the show cause notice, dated 18-10-2011 and that Mr. Zahroorul Huq was an employee of the petitioner/company and therefore, whatever action done by Mr. Zahroorul Huq has the direct responsibility of the petitioner, CHA. Further, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rubber Processing and Extender Oil instead of Base Oil and also undervalued the imported product. The applicant is therefore liable for penalty. There is no evidence to show that the co-applicants derived pecuniary advantage, though they had assisted in documentation, etc. As such, the Bench is inclined to take a lenient view and absolve the co-applicants from imposition of penalty." 8. In the light of the above finding, wherein the Commission held that there was no evidence to show that the co-applicants derived pecuniary advantage, though they had assisted in documentation, etc., the Settlement Commission was inclined to take a lenient view and absolved them from imposition of penalty. Accordingly, the Commission passed the order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y follows, that the benefit should also flow to the petitioner/company. 12. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Commission ought to have taken into consideration the earlier order, dated 24-8-2012, as it emanates from the same cause of action and granted full immunity from penalty to the petitioner. 13. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner/company is granted full immunity from penalty, in the light of the order passed by the Commission, dated 24-8-2012, wherein a finding of fact has been recorded by the Commission that there is no evidence against the co-applicant, Mr. Zahroorul Huq said to be the em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
