9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on payment of fine, looking to the nature of the case, there are no illegality in the action of the ld. Adjudicating authority for absolute confiscation of the gold bars, therefore absolute confiscation is upheld. It is also found that in the present matter Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly imposed the penalties on Appellants. Therefore the same is also not required any interference. It is established from the records that Shri Nareshbhai Savaliya masterminded the entire modus of smuggling of Gold bars by concealing the same in the embroidery machine exported by his overseas firm M/s Pali Overseas Trading Co., FZC, UAE to India - Department has produced sufficient evidence to establish that both the appellants were conspirator in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Paresh Patel stated that he was not aware about the gold having been concealed in the embroidery machines and that the entire transaction for purchase and import of the machines was handled by the Appellants herein, the DRI authorities recorded the statement of the appellants. After the investigation, a show cause notice dated 29.11.17 was issued to all the Appellants, which was decided by the Order-In-Original dated 28.12.2018 vide which adjudicating authority has ordered confiscation of computerized embroidery machines with an option to pay fine of Rs, 5 Lakhs in lieu of confiscation of the embroidery machines, with a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. Ambaji Prints. However, while imposing penalty of Rs. 1 crore on each of the Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error of upholding penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act though the Appellants herein were not guilty of any omission or commission as contemplated under this provision justifying any penalty. Section 112(a) provides for penalty on any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets doing or omission of such act. This part of Section 112 is pressed in service by the Revenue in this case against the Appellants, however the appellants have not done anything or omitted to do anything which would render the goods in question liable for confiscation. When Section 111 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. 8. We find that in the present case there is no dispute about illicit transaction of gold bars. Therefore impugned order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly upheld the absolute confiscation of the gold bars. As regard the prayer of the appellants that the confiscated goods should have been allowed to redeem on payment of fine, looking to the nature of the case, we do not find any illegality in the action of the ld. Adjudicating authority for absolute confiscation of the gold bars, therefore absolute confiscation is upheld. 9. We also find that in the present matter Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly imposed the penalties on Appellants. Therefore the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
