9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny stretch of imagination does not call for imposing penalty u/s 114 (iii) of the CA, 1962 - penalty set aside - decided in favor of appellant. - C/232, 253/06 - A/87077-87078/17/CB - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) None for Shri Mukesh Sharma Shri N.D. George, Advocate for Shri S.H. Rustom, for appellant Shri V.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducing the main accused to a Chartered Accountant. The penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on appellant is on presumption; and no penalty can be imposed in this matter as the redetermination of value has been ordered under Section 76 of the Customs Act, 1962 as the case is of an export. 5. After considering the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the role at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able in this case as just introducing to a person who enabled the main accused/appellant to get I.E. Code by any stretch of imagination does not call for imposing penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of this, we set aside impugned order to that extent it imposes penalty on Shri Sayed Hatim Rustom and allow his appeal. 5.1 As regards the appeal filed by Shri Mukesh S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Shri Mukesh Sharma and allow his appeal. 5.2 Be that as it may, we do find merits in the arguments put forth by learned Counsel that the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not attracted in this case as the adjudicating authority has redetermined the export value under Section 76 and hence the question of imposing penalty under Section 114 does not arise. 5.3 In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
