9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er by itself cannot bring in penal consequence in terms of the said section. It is apparent that in the absence of documents based on which allegations were made, the whole proceedings against the appellants become seriously jeopardized. The attempt by the Original Authority to rely on certain incidental and collateral evidence is also not found sustainable. None of these evidences will lead to the conclusion based on “preponderance of probability” as stated by the Original Authority. Even for such preponderance of probability evidences are required. The presumptions and possible inferences by deciding authority cannot substitute evidences. There is no sustainable ground to impose penalties u/s 114 on the appellants in the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out and on completion of the investigation, proceedings were initiated against the exporter for claiming ineligible export benefits by way of drawback/DEPB. The case was adjudicated and the Original Authority who vide his order dated 30/09/2003 held that the declared value of ₹ 18.63 crores was not correct and the value is re-determined as ₹ 5 lakhs. He confiscated the goods and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of ₹ 10 lakhs. The Original Authority also imposed penalties of ₹ 10 lakhs on Shri Pawan Kumar, held to be involved in the export of the said consignment and penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs on Shri Rajiv Kumar Meharwal, Inspector of Customs and ₹ 2 lakhs on Shri B.K. Pabri, Superintendent of Customs. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference to same impugned exports and, as such, no penalty under Customs Act can be imposed, as the Department itself found the officer has not violating the conduct rules. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Suraj Prakash vs. CC, New Delhi reported in 2017 (49) S.T.R. 376 (Tri. Del.). 4. The learned Counsel for Shri B.K. Pabri submitted that the directions of the Tribunal have not been complied with by the Original Authority. The crucial documents based on which the charge against the appellant was sought to be established were not provided to the appellant. The charge of abetting inviting penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act has to be established by the Revenue. Any amount of suspicion or even negligence on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, one of the points relied on by the Original Authority is voluntary statement dated 12/10/2001 of Shri Rajiv Kumar Meharwal and certain records of telephone conversation of both the appellants with persons involved in export of the impugned consignment. 7. It is apparent that in the absence of documents based on which allegations were made, the whole proceedings against the appellants become seriously jeopardized. The attempt by the Original Authority to rely on certain incidental and collateral evidence is also not found sustainable. None of these evidences will lead to the conclusion based on preponderance of probability as stated by the Original Authority. Even for such preponderance of probability evidences are required. The pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
