9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amrit Jyoti Mudoi for the reason that they are not claiming the Indian Currency. In any event, the evidence on record would show the involvement of Dr. Amrit Jyoti Mudoi in the alleged offence. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Cus/575/09 & C/603-5/09 & CO/15,16 & 17/2010 - FO/A/76234-237/2017 - Dated:- 18-7-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri. D. K. Acharya, Advocate for Dr. Amrit Jyoti other 3 for the Petitioner Shri S. N. Mitra, A.C. (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary The facts of the case in brief are that on 20.01.2000, the D.R.I. Officers intercepted one maruti van, when one carton of smuggled poultry vaccines were being delivered to one person in fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of ₹ 200,000/-. Revenue filed appeals against the dropping of the penalties in respect of the other employees of M/s Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. The Ld. A.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue re-iterates the grounds of appeal filed against the respondents. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority refrained from imposition of penalty without considering the materials on record. The Ld. Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that there is no material against the respondents of involvement in the alleged offence. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the case, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in respect of the three respondents are reproduced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the charges of abetment of like this in the instant case. He confirms that if any unlawful activity is done by his Siliguri office towards purchase of poultry vaccine of foreign origin, it is the production manager, Dr. Amrit Jyoti Mudoi who is to be held responsible as he is empowered by the company to take such decisions on his own considering the nature of business. No evidence as such is no record on the basis of which Sri Anjan Chakravarti can be implicated with the seizure of goods/currency rendered the same liable to confiscation under Section 111 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively. In view of this I do not find any merit whatsoever in imposing penalty upon Sri Anjan Chakravarti under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
