9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELD THAT:- This Bench has carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made. This Bench has gone through the grounds of appeal as well as submissions made. This Bench has not found that the impugned order was passed without application of mind nor this Bench has found that the impugned order is unreasoned and arbitrary. This Bench, therefore, upholds the impugned order, does not interfere with the same and reject this appeal. As Per: Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati HELD THAT:- As we have observed from the Daily Order sheet copy of the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Asst. Commissioner, CGST Audit II, Mumbai annexed to appeal memo at page 203 and 204, it is an undisputed fact that Mr. Pinakin A. Sodha was an employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai dated 09.01.2020 is hereby confirmed. - Customs Appeal No. 85415 of 2020 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/85514/2023 - Dated:- 31-3-2023 - HON BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Kuldeep Singh Nara , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Manoj Kumar , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeal is directed against order CAO No. 77/CAC/PCC (G)/CBS (Adj.) dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are holders of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered against the appellant. It appeared to Revenue that the appellant had violated regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(e), 11(f), 11(m) and 11(o) of Custom Broker License Regulations, 2013. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry and submitted inquiry report dated 08.07.2019. Subsequent to the same, by accepting the inquiry report, the impugned order was passed. The learned Commissioner through impugned order has found that the appellant had violated all the regulations which were stated earlier and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant under regulation 18 of Custom Broker License Regulations, 2013, forfeited the entire amount of security deposit deposited by the appellant with Customs authorities and revoked Customs Brok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at statements of importers in some of the said 43 consignments were recorded and it revealed that the consignments were not imported by the passport holders and they were not even aware of such import taking place in their name. He further submitted that Shri Pinakin A. Sodha in his statement recorded on 18.02.2017 and 11.05.2017 inter alia submitted that he was paid Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/- per consignment which was inclusive of all expenses and the said payment was made to him in cash against delivery of goods by Shri Yusuf Lokhandwala and that his job profile relates to Customs formalities and documentations for clearance of unaccompanied baggage and that he reported to Shri Mehul K. Masrani, who was partner of the CHA firm M/s N D Masra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantiate my agreement with his finding, I consider it appropriate to add few lines on the merit of this appeal, which can be summarised as under 8. The appellant has all along contested the appeal on the ground that CB firm cannot be held responsible in the event of any illegal work, if any, committed by his employee in his personal capacity while carrying out the civil legal works. Appellant has taken divergent stand concerning the standing of Mr. Pinakin A. Sodha, alleged employee of its firms by stating that the said Mr. Pinakin A. Sodha was an employee of CB firm only up to 2005 and while seeking renewal of the CB licence his name was included in the list of employees that was annexed to the licence application form but ultimatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y report findings on the ground of unreasonable delay of one year and three months, while CBLR, 2013 Regulation 21 dictates that the said enquiry has to be completed within 90 days. We are not in agreement with the appellant s submission for the reason that Learned Commissioner had dealt with this aspect and attributed the delay to the non-cooperation of the appellant who did not facilitate for early completion of the enquiry and sought accommodation/ adjournments at intervals and in citing the recent judicial decision of this Tribunal passed in the case of Unison Clearing P. Ltd. reported in 2018 (361) ELT 321 (Bom), she observed that such delay is not fatal to the outcome of enquiry and would not defeat its purpose. This being the factual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
