9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Om Udyog is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.218 & 220/2016 dated 2.3.2016 whereunder inter alia a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellant initially by the Order-in-Original dated 2.12.2014 has been sustained. 2. The brief facts are that :- (i) During the search conducted by Revenue - DRI, certain petroleum products viz. H.A. (Heavy Alckeys), Calcium Grease, lubricating oi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n imported falling under "illegal Traffic" in terms of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundry Movement) Rules, 2008 and would fall under Section 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962 as "prohibited goods", liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. (iv) The appellant Jeevan Jain, proprietor of M/s Om Udyog along with M/s Goyal Petrochem were issued Show Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant and ld. DR Shri K. Poddar for the Revenue have been heard. 4. The main pleading of the appellant is that the finished goods did not belong to them. The department has not proved the relationship of the appellant with the subject goods. There was no statement recorded of the appellant proving the ownership of the appellant for the subject goods. The appellant, therefore, pleads that the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing out for itself". However this finding of the adjudicating authority in the face of facts on record is not sustainable. This finding is more in the nature of mere statement, which is without sufficient evidence to sustain the same. 5.1 Consequently, the impugned order in respect of the appellant Shri Jeevan Jain, proprietor of M/s Om Udyog imposing the penalty on him is hereby set aside and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
