9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of customs duty - it is clear that the appellant was actively involved in removal of goods without payment of customs duty. Therefore, he has aided and abetted the evasion of customs duty - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/87216/16 - A/88803/17/SMB - Dated:- 3-7-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) None for the appellant Shri M.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, therefore the appellant is before me. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. From the grounds of appeal the appellants submits that he was working as a manager, Administration and reporting to the Director of SMC Jewels. When Shri Mohd. Maqsood approached the appellant enquiring about resi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submission made by both sides. I find that there is no dispute about the clearance of dust/scrap from the unit of SMC Jewels without payment of customs duty. As regards the role of appellants the Commissioner (Appeals) gave the finding as under:- Regarding the appellant Shri Satish Wadekar, I find that Shri Satish Wadekar, Manager of unit in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he allowed and facilitated the scrap vendor in the illegal removal of the residual dust and scrap without payment of duty. The facts and circumstance of the case clearly prove his active involvement in the matter i.e. right from negotiation to illegal removal of the goods. In the appeal the appellants attempted to shrink his responsibility to the director and colleague by highlighting his role li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I uphold penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on Shri Satish Wadekar under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. From the above finding of the lower authority, it is clear that the appellant was actively involved in removal of goods without payment of customs duty. Therefore, he has aided and abetted the evasion of customs duty. I therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
