9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part but he was not knowing about the no. of carats in 1 Kg., but the Bs/E were filed as per Carats shown in Invoices and same were appraised by the group as such and he never questioned about this. The appellant had not committed any act of omission or commission rendering the goods liable to confiscation and consequently no penalty is attracted under Section 112(a)/(b) of the Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 52103 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50116/2020 - Dated:- 23-1-2020 - HON BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. C. L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Reena Rawat, Advocate for the appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Yadav, CHA was recorded on 11.08.2011 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he inter-alia stated that he was F-Card Holder and working as CHA for the last five years; that he came into contact with Shri Mohit Arora, proprietor of M/s Ambika Enterprises through Shri Pankaj Gaba, who was working as Business Development Manager in BLPL Shipping Line and presently working at China and his friend Ashish Ranjan S who was also working in same company, introduced him to Pankaj Gaba; that he was not aware since when Mohit Arora was importing Synthetic Diamond Powder, that he was doing clearance work for Shri Mohit Arora for last four months and produced the copies of following Bill of entries (i) 4063292 dated 13.07.2011 (ii) 347 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the importer. 4. Show cause notice dated 13.02.2012 was issued on the importer M/s Ambika Enterprises and its Prop. Shri Mohit Arora. The appellant and his employee Shri Vinod Rishi, G Card holder were also made co-noticee proposing to impose penalty under Section 112(a)/(b) and 117 of the Customs Act. 5. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest and import goods were held liable to confiscation. Further, demanding the differential duty from the importer alongwith penalty under Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Act. Penalty on the appellant was imposed under Section 112(a)/(b) of ₹ 2 lakhs and further ₹ 50,000/- on G Card holder Shri Vinod Rishi under the same section. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any objection wherein also similar declaration was made. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Kunal Travels (Cargo) vs. CC (I G), IGI Airport, New Delhi -2017 (354) ELT 447 (Del.) and also of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of D.S. Cargo Service vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2009 (247) ELT 769 (Tri. Del.). 8. Opposing the contention of the learned Counsel, learned Authorised Representative for the Department relies on the impugned order. Further, he placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ankit Mehta vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2018 (362) ELT 320 (Tri. Del.). 9. Having considered the riv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
