9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 28(6) of the Customs Act which clearly lays down that once the duty with interest and penalty has been paid in full, then the proceedings in respect of the importer as well as other persons should be deemed conclusive. The appellant is covered by Section 28(6) and therefore the proceedings against him also stands concluded once the importer has accepted the undervaluation and paid the differential duty along with interest and penalty - penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20894/2017-SM, C/20896/2017-SM, C/21297/2017-SM - 22929-22931/2017 - Dated:- 27-11-2017 - Shri. SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri M.S. Sajeevkumar, Advocate, For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N.S. Mahesh, owner of M/s. M.M. International, a clearing and forwarding firm and a local clearing agent. The original authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 1 lakh each on the appellant under Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act 1962. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant tiled appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) after considering the various submissions of the appellant upheld the penalty under Section 112(a) but dropped the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, appellant has filed these three appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion on the part of the appellant to undervalue the goods declared by the importers. In fact the appellant has only acted as a Clearing and Forwarding Agent and there is no independent corroborative evidence to come to the conclusion that he has helped the importer in evading the payment of customs duty. In fact there is no legally sustainable evidence of connivance against the appellant. More over it has been accepted by the Revenue that the importer has paid the differential duty along with interest and penalty and the same has been appropriated in the Order-in-original. Further I find that the appellant's case is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 28(6) of the Customs Act which clearly lays down that once the duty with int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
