9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is wife Uma Devi, Sri Madan Mohan, Sri Rajasekhar & Sri Krishna Murthy (Retired Superintendent are its partners. Mirza Ghouse Ahmed, (the first named appellant herein), from whose premises the firms operated, was also inducted as a partner in the year 2001. The appellant firm exported seven consignments of drugs valued at Rs. 4.26 crores and got DEPB Credit of Rs. 75.97 lakhs on the goods exported to Myanmar & Cambodia during December 2000 to October 2001. The Department alleges that the exports were overvalued with a view to obtain DEPB credit fraudulently, there were no importers for the goods exported, the value of the goods was outsourced into the firm's bank accounts through one KRK International and some other sources and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C-MUM-CUS and Swem Industries Vs CCE & Customs, Surat-I 2003 (154) ELT 417 (Tri.-Mumbai) that once partnership is penalized no separate penalties are imposable on the partner, was ignored. (iv) The consignments exported could not be assailed based on so called confessional statements which are not credible being non-voluntary. This is evident from the fact that large portions of the statements of Shri.J.S.S.V.Prasad and Shri.Mirza Ghouse Ahmed are identical. (v) It is not open for the revenue to recover DEPB credit under Section 28 (1) of Customs Act,1962 along with interest as per settled law in Mercantile India Vs CC Chennai 2007-TIOL-1085-CESTAT-MAD. DEPB credit is not a duty of customs and hence not liable to be realized under Sec. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ix) The confiscation under Section 111 (d) of Customs Act, 1962 of foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 4.25 crores already withdrawn is not correct since the said amount does not constitute goods imported within Indian customs waters contrary to any prohibition imposed under Customs Act or any other law for time being in force. Therefore the penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 is also not sustainable. 4. In respect of appellant Mirza Ghouse Ahmed, it is contended that the appellant joined the firm much later to the commencement of alleged illegal exports and there is no evidence that he was a party to the conspiracy. 5. On the other hand, Shri Nagaraj Naik, DC (AR) for Revenue, supports the adjudication. 6. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the adjudicating authority to have dealt with each and every contention of the appellants and indicate his findings thereon. This has not been done. 6.6 The entire adjudication order appears to be a mere rehash of the allegations of the SCN. No cogent analysis or detailed reasoning is forthcoming in the impugned order for arriving at the confirmation of the proposals made in the SCN. 6.7 High quantum of penalties imposed, inter alia, on the appellants, is also not explained or reasoned out. For example, it is not understood why a penalty to the extent of Rs. 4,00,00,000 (Rs.4 crores) has been imposed on Help Line when irregular DEPB credit involved is only Rs. 75,97,317/-. Nor is there any discussions or justification for the raison d& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
