9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the certificate/evidences, the orders confirming the demands were set aside and the appeals were allowed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - The present SCN, on the other hand, refers to the allegation of illicit removal of the goods, from the M/s Cosmic Textiles Pvt. Ltd. unit without payment of duty and resorting into paper transaction to claim various export benefits. Thus, the present SCN which was issued after detailed investigation of the persons concerned, transporters, brokers etc cannot be said to be arising out of the same set of facts - present SCN is held to be legal and valid. Penalty - Held that: - the Appellant was fully aware of the fact that the transaction would be going to be a paper transaction and not real tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as on the same issue earlier Show Cause Notices were issued on 30.12.2002 and 07.12.2006 and had been adjudicated confirming the demand. However, on filing respective appeals, the same were decided in their favour by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the Orders. Therefore, on the same issue, the third Show Cause Notice dt.30.05.2005 is unsustainable in law. In support, he has referred to the decision of Arya Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Astt. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1994 (69) ELT 631 (Cal.), R.C Fabrics (P) Ltd Vs UoI - 1995 (76) ELT 9 (Del.), Metal Extruders India Pvt. Ltd. Vs UoI - 1994 (69) ELT 477 (Bom.). 4. With regard to the Appellant Shri Rajendra Rajyaguru, the learned Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative for the Revenue has submitted that after analyzing the evidences on record, the learned Commissioner recorded at Para 38 of the impugned order about his involvement in the paper transactions of the goods. It is his contention that while introducing to the respective brokers, Shri Rajendra Rajyaguru, he has admitted that he was aware of the fact that it was a paper transaction, a fact known to him. Therefore, the penalty on Shri Rajendra Rajyaguru has been rightly imposed by the learned Adjudicating Authority. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. The Appellant M/s Cosmic Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and others represented by the learned Advocate Shri Mithil Dave advanced the only argument that since on the same set of facts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Noticee No.1 to Noticee No.2. Shri Govind Patel, Director of Noticee No.1 had stated that the documents regarding clearance of duty free goods by their unit to Noticee No.2 were routed through Shri Pradeep Agarwal, one of the broker, whereas Shri Pradeep Agarwal had another version to tell. He had thrown the onus on Shri Rajendra Rajyaguru, another broker, as to the responsibility of documents regarding such clearance. Shri Rajendra Rajyaguru had passed the burden on to Shri Pradeep Agarwal. In short, the versions regarding clearance of duty free goods by Noticee No.1 to Noticee No.2 of all the persons involved were contradictory, which goes to show that in fact there was no such clearance affected. It was merely a paper transaction, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
