9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged illegal removal. The Revenue has failed to bring on record any material evidence to justify the imposition of penalty, more so when they did not even allege that the act or omission on the part of these appellants has led to confiscation of the goods. The penalty imposed, as confirmed in the impugned order, cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. 40545 of 2021 and Customs Appeal No. 40612 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER NOs. 40310-40311 / 2022 - Dated:- 24-8-2022 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R. Rajaraman, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER These two appeals are filed against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal Seaport C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Area without proper permission; that a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against one Mr. Prabhu; that common Order-in-Original was passed vide Order-in-Original No. 73743/2020 dated 13.02.2020 against all the notices wherein penalty of Rs.1,40,000/- was imposed under Section 112(a) ibid. and a further penalty of Rs.30,00,000/- was imposed under Section 114AA ibid. on both these appellants; that the appellants preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who having rejected the appeals of these appellants, the present appeals have been filed before this forum. 4.1 Shri N. Viswanathan, Learned Advocate appearing for both the appellants, submitted inter alia that the Show Cause Notice does not specifically attribute any a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Mr. M.D. Karthikeyan, whose statement was also corroborated by the statement of one Mr. U. Magesh. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities as also the judgement of the Hon ble High Court of Madras. 7.1 The argument of the Learned Departmental Representative that the penalty on the appellants was imposed/confirmed, firstly, based on the statement of Mr. M.D. Karthikeyan and secondly, that of Mr. Magesh, only points out that the penal action in question has been taken solely based on the statements of co-noticees, which is directly contrary to the judgement of the Hon ble Madras High Court (supra). From a perusal of the Show Cause Notice as well as the orders of the lower au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
