9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant Shri Chatru Singh, AC ( AR ) for Respondent ORDER Per: Shri Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been imposed on him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one M/s Duflon Industries Pvt. Ltd. imported inputs namely, PTFE Resin Grade 669, on which Anti-Dumping duty was leviable if cleared as such into the DTA or used in manufacture of goods that are cleared to DTA. As they had not paid Anti Dumping duty, the proceedings under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act were initiated against M/s Duflon Industries Pvt. Ltd. as well as against the appellant. As M/s Duflon Industries Pvt. Ltd. paid the entire amount duty along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty has been paid within 30 days from the issuance of the SCN, in that circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the appellant in SCN is not sustainable. Whereas, learned DR relies on the decision of Yogesh Korani case (supra) to say that penalty is imposable on the co-appellant as he is co-obligant of indivisible act of principal noticee. I have gone through the decision of Yogesh Korani case (supra), the said decision is on Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and the same is not relevant to the present case, therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Whereas the learned Counsel for the appellant relies on Gautam Pukhraj Bafna (supra), wherein the facts of the case are as under: - 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the witness, liability of penalty is to be set aside as held by the Hon ble High Court in J K Cigarettes Ltd. (supra). Further, the adjudicating authority has not denied the contents of the affidavit/medical certificate filed by the appellant during the course of proceedings. In the absence of denial of the contents of both documents, therefore the statement recorded on 11-11-2009 is not corroborated with concrete evidence for imposing the penalty on the appellant. Moreover, the decision of Special Bench of the Settlement Commission is not binding on the Tribunal and Tribunal is bound by the decision of this Tribunal. Therefore, as held by the Tribunal in Vijay R. Bohra (supra) that if the case of main noticee is settled, the case against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
