9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellant. - C/430 & 430A/2009 - 22652-22653/2017 - Dated:- 30-10-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg Appellant have filed these two appeals against the two impugned adjudication orders dated 27.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner, whereby the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- each on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the allegation of abetting smuggling. 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical and the evidence is also the same, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hader's instructions he (Md. Riyazudeen) had appended his signature in the Frazer Town Post office acknowledging the receipt of four parcels and taken delivery of the same. 3.3 Shri Mohammed Riyazudeen also introduced Shri Putta Ramu and informed that he was the driver of the car being Registration No.KA 02 C 7591 which was arranged by the said Abdul Khader for transportation. Shri Mohammed Riyazudeen also informed that Shri Abdul Khader is residing at 201, 12th Main, 1st Block, Manjunatha Nagar, Bangalore 10 at the ground floor and he (Mohammed Riyazudeen) is residing at the first floor in the same premises and that Shri Abdul Kader belonged to his native place viz., Illayangudi of Sivagangai District, Tamil Nadu. The officers inqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angali Implex Ltd. Vs. UOI: 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.) . He further submitted that the CBI Court vide its order dated 31.10.2011 acquitted the appellant from the alleged charges levelled against him in respect of parallel proceedings initiated under the provisions of Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and therefore, he submitted that the question of imposing penalty for abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not arise. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of Department of Customs Vs. Arvind Kumar: 2017 (348) ELT 411 (Del.) . He further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant under CCS (CCA) Rules has been dropped vide enquiry report dated 2.7.2013, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner vide the impugned order has given detailed reasoning considering each and every piece of evidence on record and also the statements made by the appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that the role of the appellant has been discussed by the Commissioner and thereafter, he has been imposed the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- each on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the imposition of penalty on the appellant under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
