9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The fact that penalty was deleted upon the other co-noticee would not by itself justify deletion of penalty on the appellant - In the case of other three appellants namely; Mr. Govind Khubchandani, Mr. Jairaj Kalyani and Mr. Pawan Lulla, no penalty was imposed as in the case of the above three appellants, a finding of fact was recorded that they have either not dealt with the goods or in case of godown keeper that he had no knowledge that the goods are liable for confiscation. This is not so in the present facts. This concurrent finding of fact both by the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal that the appellant was involved in transporting offending goods with knowledge that they are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the penalty on the appellant who was merely matriculate casual employee and was following instructions of his Employer to escort the trucks from Chembur naka to Ulhasnagar Octroi Naka and was not in knowledge of highly technical and legal provisions of 100% EOU or about the diversion of the said consignment in contravention of any provisions of law? 3. Brief Facts : (a) M/s. Mayur Impex is a 100% EOU. It is engaged in the manufacture and export of ready made garments for which purpose it imports fabrics which are cleared without payment of duty. This duty free import of fabrics is for use in its 100% EOU to manufacture and export its ready made garme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat duty free imported fabrics have been cleared in the local market and were escorted by him. This statement was never retracted by the appellant. In the aforesaid circumstances, penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs was imposed upon the appellant under Section 112 of the Act for dealing with offending goods liable for confiscation. Besides, penalty was also imposed upon the various other noticees including Mr. Govind Khubchandani (godown keeper), Mr. Jairaj Kalyani and Mr. Pawan Lulla (broker and purchaser) of the fabrics. (e) The appellant as well as Mr. Govind Khubchandani, Mr. Jairaj Kalyani and Mr. Pawan Lulla filed appeals to the Tribunal challenging the imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Act upon them. On 16th August, 2017, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Pawan Lulla had been deleted on the ground that mere reliance upon the call records cannot lead to the conclusion that the parties therein had dealt with the offending goods. Thus, the same benefit should have been extended to the appellant; and (iii) that the appellant was merely an employee and following the instructions of his employer. Thus, he had no knowledge about the requirements of 100% EOU. In the above circumstances, it was submitted that the appeal requires consideration. 5. We find that it is an undisputed position that the show-cause notice had been issued to M/s. Mayur Impex for having diverted duty free imported goods into the domestic traffic area. Thus, liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. In fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
