9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Bench in M/S. COCHIN AIR CARGO CLEARING HOUSE, M/S. E. KOCHURANI AND M/S. V.A. MARY DAS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) , TIRUCHIRAPPALLI [ 2023 (9) TMI 1198 - CESTAT CHENNAI] after considering the facts as pleaded by both the sides, has inter alia held that there was no evidence to allege that the appellants therein had connived in any manner, in the overvaluation of the goods im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the imposition of penalty under Section 117 ibid. on the present appellant in the peculiar facts of this case - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) None for the Appellant Shri Rudra Pratap Singh , Additional Commissioner for the Respondent ORDER Order : [ Per Hon ble Mr. P. Dinesha ] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse, No. A6, First Floor, Khajamian School Complex, TVS Tollgate, Trichy 620 020. (2) Smt. Kochu Rani, Managing Partner, M/s. Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House, No. 30/369A, Matsyapuri Post, Cochin 682 029 (3) Shri V.A. Mary Das, Manager, M/s. Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House, No. 30/369A, Matsyapuri Post, Cochin 682 029 (4) M/s. Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House, No. 30/369A, Mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal furnished by the Ld. Additional Commissioner. 7. This Bench vide Final Order dated 25.09.2023 (supra), after considering the facts as pleaded by both the sides, has inter alia held that there was no evidence to allege that the appellants therein had connived in any manner, in the overvaluation of the goods imported. We find that most of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y with. 9.2 A perusal of the impugned order does not point out as to what was expected of the present appellant, being one of innumerable employees of the Customs Broker, as his duty to comply with, which the appellant had failed to perform. Insofar as this appellant is concerned, the Commissioner himself has observed that there was no direct evidence of connivance. 10. In the light of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
