9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posing penalty on appellant - Commissioner’s observation that the appellant had played an active role as financier and abetted the offence committed by co-accused is without any supporting evidence - penalty imposed on appellant is not sustainable without establishing that he had rendered the export goods liable for confiscation X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere confiscated under Section 113 (h) of the Act arid penalties of Rs. 8,20,000/- and Rs. 5 lakhs respectively were imposed on Shri Santhosh P. Patil (appellant) and Shri Jeyakumar Nair under Rule 114(iii) of the Act. In the appeal filed by sri Santhosh P. Patil, the main ground taken is that there is no finding of involvement of the appellant in the attempted illicit export of "Common Salt". In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by evidence. The ld. Counsel reiterates the above arguments contained in the appeal and submits that penalty was imposed without sufficient evidence indicating any active role by the appellant in the attempted illicit export. Ld. SDR submits that the exporter Shri Jeyakumar Nair was only an employee of the appellant. The appellant had managed finances required for the attempted export. He had fabr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by Shri Jeyakumar Nair is without any supporting evidence. In the circumstances, I find that penalty imposed on the appellant is not sustainable without establishing that he had rendered the export goods liable for confiscation by misdeclaring its value and description to obtain undue drawback. I find that penalty imposed on the appellant to be not sustainable and, accordingly, set aside the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
