9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e co-noticees indicate that both the appellants had visited the premises of the EOU and took inspection of the goods and the statements also records that both the appellants were indulged in purchase of fabrics in cash without any documents - the appellants’ claim of ignorance, is without any merits. The penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs each on these two appellants is definitely excessive considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008/Thane-I dated 27/03/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane - I. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding imposition of penalties by the adjudicating authority on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. On perusal of the records it transpires that the appellants are alleged to have purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were diverted from the EOU. It was also argued that the notice is vague inasmuch as it is not indicating specifically the value of the quantity procured by them and that the penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs imposed is excessive considering the fact that one of the co-noticee Shri M.D. Gala, who was a Chartered Accountant, was alleged to have been instrumental in issuing solvency certificate w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were indulged in purchase of fabrics in cash without any documents. If the appellant s case is that they were not aware that the goods were of non-duty paid and diverted then they had no explanation for purchase of fabrics on cash from individuals who sold to them. In my considered view, the appellants claim of ignorance, I find that the appeals of the appellants are without any merits. 8. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
