9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... container was in fact tampered with and surprisingly, it is not the case of the Revenue that it was the appellant who was responsible for the tampering with, as indicated by Shri M. Annamalai. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the appellant had acquaintance with the so-called mastermind i.e., Shri Ramesh which prompted the appellant to act in a reckless manner. Nor is it the case of the Revenue that the appellant had knowingly or intentionally signed any statement or document which was false. So also, the Revenue has failed to establish the mala fides of the appellant since nowhere has the Revenue alleged that the appellant was aware or had acted deliberately. The observation by a neutral party throws reasonable suspicion as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018; that the detained container was moved to M/s. Sattva Hi-Tech Conware Private Limited, No. 126A, TPP Road, Manali, Ponneri High Road, Chennai 600 103, and on detailed examination of the wooden logs and the container on 20.08.2018 in the presence of Tamil Nadu Forest Officials, IEC holder, CHA staff, Liner Agent, M/s. Excellmax Surveyors International among others, it was confirmed that the said wooden logs weighing 15.665 Metric Tons were Red Sanders logs. 2. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice, as reflected at paragraph 43, reads as under: 43. Shri D. Sahil, the IEC holder of M/s. Mahadev Granites, Bargur appears to have acted in a reckless manner in allowing his IEC to be misused by Shri Ramesh and allowing himself to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenged before the First Appellate Authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai vide impugned Order-in-Appeal Seaport C.Cus.II No. 120/2021 dated 12.03.2021 having rejected the appeal, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 4.1 Shri N. Viswanathan, Learned Advocate, appeared for the appellant and submitted that there was no scope at all in the first place to levy penalty under Section 114AA ibid. and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. His submissions can inter alia be summarized as under: (i) That neither the Notice nor the impugned order having cited or relied upon any single document or declaration made, signed, used by him with intentions and knowledge that the same are false or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t v. M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. [2015 (326) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]; (f) M/s. Swapne Nagari Holiday Resort v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raigad [2019 (21) G.S.T.L. 559 (Tri. Mum.)]; (g) M/s. ABM Knowledge Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Appeals), Mumbai-III [2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 694 (Tri. Mum.)]; (h) M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2019 (370) E.L.T. 699 (Tri. Bang.)]; (i) Hamid Fahim Ansari v. Commr. of Cus. (Import), Nhava Sheva [2009 (241) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.)]; (j) M. Natarajan v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2010 (261) E.L.T. 629 (Tri. Chennai)]; (k) Atul D. Sonpal v. Commissioner of Cus. (Acc Import), Mumbai [2012 (275) E.L.T. 248 (Tri. Mum.)]; (l) Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Red Sanders logs weighing 15.665 Metric Tons, totally valued at ₹ 6,26,60,000/- and the Container number GESU 2299359 valued at ₹ 80,000/- were seized under the Customs Act, 1962 vide Mahazar dated 20/08/2018 (RUD-2) and handed over to the CFS authorities for safe custody. (Emphasized by me in bold) 7.2 From the above, the Surveyor, who is not an interested party, has categorically opined that the container was in fact tampered with and surprisingly, it is not the case of the Revenue that it was the appellant who was responsible for the tampering with, as indicated by Shri M. Annamalai. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the appellant had acquaintance with the so-called mastermind i.e., Shri Ramesh whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
