9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission. However, in the instant case, the Hon’ble Settlement Commission themselves have, in its order, clearly elucidated that adjudicating authority was free to proceed against other co-noticees in the SCN. This part of the order of Settlement Commission has attained finality since the same has not been challenged or stay thereof was obtained from the competent forum - Coming to the appeal of M/s.G. Devasai International and T.R. Bhoopalan, I note that in the impugned order Commissioner (Appeals) has already reduced the penalties to considerable extent as indicated herein above. I do not find any reason for further interference in respect of the penalties imposed on M/s.Devasai International and Shri T.R. Bhoopalan. They are fair and just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER All the three appeals being connected with the same impugned order, they are being taken up together for common disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that Glass Chatons were imported as Artificial Stones for Imitation Jewellery and the value thereof was found to be very low. After investigation, show cause notice dt. 23.6.2011 was issued inter alia proposing rejection of transaction value, demand of differential duty of ₹ 5,60,481/- and imposition of penalties on Shri Uttam Chand Sawal Chand Jain, M/s.Devasai International, Shri M.Ritesh, Shri T.R. Bhoopalan and M/s.Santon Shipping Services. Subsequently, the said Shri Uttam Chand Jain approached the Settlement Commission se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y identical, the underlying objective in both the schemes is similar and hence cases of co-noticees come to an end once the order of settlement is passed in respect of the person who filed application before the Settlement Commission. 3.1 He also submitted that in respect of M/s.G.Devasai International, the said appellant had only lent his IE code which enabled the said Shri Uttam Chand Jain to import the goods for a monetary consideration of ₹ 3000/-. In respect of Shri T.R. Bhoopalan, the said person had only filed Bill of Entry and handled the documents related thereto. In respect of Shri M.Ritesh, the said person only acted as middlemen at Chennai for Shri Uttam Chand Jain and solicited for obtaining signature of T.R.Bhoopalan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Commissioner (Appeals) has already reduced the penalties to considerable extent as indicated herein above. I do not find any reason for further interference in respect of the penalties imposed on M/s.Devasai International and Shri T.R. Bhoopalan. They are fair and just with respect to the roles played out by them in the entire matter and also the findings with regard to the said persons. 8. However, with respect to the penalties under Section 112 (a) and Section 114AA imposed on Shri M.Ritesh, I find that the same requires a revisit. The role of Shri Ritesh, as concluded by the adjudicating authority in para-45 of the OIO, is only as a middleman. While the said paragraph does mention that he has also involved himself in the clearance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
