9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - decided against Revenue. - C/41928-41929/2013 - 40694-40695/2017 - Dated:- 16-5-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR), for the appellants Shri S. Janani Rajalaxmi, Adv., for the Respondents ORDER Being aggrieved with the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the lower authority imposing penalties upon the respondents, Revenue has filed these present appeals. 2. As per the facts on record, Shri P. Illangovan is a partner of CHA firm M/s. Sri Shipping Services, Chennai, and Shri V. Sridharan is his employee. The said CHA firm filed export documents under the Shipping Bill No. 3794947 dated 23.06.2010, in the name of M/s. Tirupur Pandit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran, in terms of Section 114 (i) along with a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- under Section 114AA of the Customs Act 1962. Penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- was imposed upon Shri P. Illangovan under Section 117 of the said Act. On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties by observing as under:- 5. Neither in the SCN nor in the impugned order there was an allegation that the appellants had the knowledge about the illegal goods. The main allegation was that the appellants failed to verify the genuinity of the exporter. Even for that matter the 2nd appellant had instructed the 1st appellant to verify the credentials of the exporters. Hence, he cannot be blamed. Moreover, penalty imposed on him under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, or the substitution of the declared goods with the red sander logs. In these circumstances, the appellate authority has rightly observed that the provisions of Section 114 or 117 cannot be invoked. If they was any violation of CHALR, action could have been taken under those regulations. 6. Tribunal in the case of Syndicate Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2003 (154) ELT 756 (Tri.-Chen) has held, in identical circumstances, that the CHA cannot be penalized under the Customs Act, in the absence of any positive evidence on record to show any malafide intention on his part or to establish him as an abettor. Mere failure in carrying out duties in accordance with law cannot be held to be a sufficient ground for imposition of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
