9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tected by DRI. Such commission of offence cannot but be punished appropriately under law as provided in Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the facts of the case, it has to be held that the employer has been irresponsible for ensuring proper conduct by employees and employer has been irresponsible for ensuring proper conduct by employees and cannot absolve himself of the liability - the factual findings of the 1st Appellate are not controverted in any manner. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No.C/30204/2017 - A/31966/2017 - Dated:- 8-11-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member ( Judicial ) Sh. Mr. Japa Bajpeyi, ( Manager ) Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Chandra Bose, ( Additional Commissioner ), for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The appellant herein is represented by Shri. Japa Bajpeyi, Manager he submits as under: i) That the exit from bonding operations is not possible without reconciliation and payment of pending dues under 73 of the Custom Act, confirming the demand of duty again without verifying and circumstances despite repeated requests is causing grave prejudice and violation of natural justice. The operations of duty-free-shop were closed from 22-09-2010 and all the goods in stock were allowed to be transferred to another outlet at Bengalure. Till the stocks reconciliation is done no demand can be confirmed. It is the submission that the goods which were in the ware house were provisionally assessed. 6. It is further submission that the sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion at para 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) of the impugned order that there was certain inability on their part to verify the fact regarding their claim of duty demanded probable payment of duty in view of the closure of their bond operations on 22.09.2010. Accordingly, they requested the original authority to cross check and ascertain this fact. This request dated 19.06.2015 made before the original authority has been reiterated during the persona hearing held on the matter before the original authority on 30.06.2015. However, as noted earlier, the failure of the original authority to provide such documents which are not relied upon documents in the case was not critical to the determination of duty on the goods involved and penalization of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verification. There is no dispute raised by the appellant about the liability arising from the case they are not required to pay any interest on duty demanded during the period after the said date of payment of ₹ 20laks. In this regard, I find that the original authority has rightly confirmed the requirement to pay interest on the duty demanded as per the law, though the date from which such interest would became payable has not been mentioned. It is to be noted that the liability to interest in such cases are governed by Section 72 and the terms of bond undertaken by them. Facts being so, at this stage this appellate authority cannot entertain question as regards the period for which interest is payable when there is no dispute rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commission of offence is the failure of the license/appellant. The evidence on record in the form of oral evidence of the employees which have been elaborately discussed in the earlier Order-in-Original dated 25.04.2012 as well as the impugned order clearly show that there was concerted manipulation of accounts, stock-registers etc., which resulted in excess and / or shortage of goods which were detected by DRI. Such commission of offence cannot but be punished appropriately under law as provided in Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the facts of the case, it has to be held that the employer has been irresponsible for ensuring proper accounts which had facilitated the commission of offence is the failure of the licensee/appellant. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has also sought to portray as though they had in terms of the earlier adjudication of the past case made in Order-in-Original wherein he has correctly held that the offence dealt the impugned Order-in-Original wherein he has correctly held that the offence dealt with in the impugned order related to shortage of goods whereas goods which were found in excess had been dealt with in the earlier proceedings resulting in Order-in-Original No.18/2015-Cus-Adjn dated 25.04.2012. Thus, the offences dealt with were in relation to different set of goods in the two proceedings. Therefore, it is evident that the penalty imposed in the instant impugned order has no relationship with the goods which were found in excess earlier and vice versa. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
