9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/39/2005-DB - Final Order No. 22007/2017 - Dated:- 31-8-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Shri P. Nagendran, Advocate - For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S Garg The present appeal is filed by the appellant, Dr. A.C. Mathew, against the impugned order dt. 16/04/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of ₹ 1 lakh on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that M/s. Cochin Plastics Pvt. Ltd. is a unit in the Cochin Export Proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the issue of the show-cause notice dt. 20/08/1999. The show-cause notice has been issued to the following persions: 1. M/s. Cochin Plastics Pvt. Ltd., 2. Shri George Pandicheril, 3. Mrs. Sally George, 4. Shri Amar Jeet Singh, 5. Shri Reji K. Thomas, 6. Dr. A.C. Mathew and 7. M/s. Cappithan Agencies. The show-cause notice proposes to confiscate the goods under Section 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Legal Agreement executed by the company as per para 9(6) of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002. The show-cause notice further proposes to levy penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the above persons. After following due process of law, the Commissioner of Customs ordered for the confiscation of the goods cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has been proved by the Department against the present appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the impugned order, we find that the Department has not been able to bring any evidence against the present appellant regarding the involvement of the appellant in the affairs of the company. We also find that as per Form No.32 filed with the Registrar of Companies, appellant was allegedly made Director on 14/08/1997 much after of the import of the goods. We also find that the Department has not been able to bring on record sufficient evidence to show that the appellant was involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
