9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant mentioned that the penalty is being imposed u/s 112 for the Appellant’s abetment in the doings and omission of the act which have rendered the imported goods liable for confiscation, the order does not discuss as to in what manner the Appellant have abetted the illicit diversion of the goods. Even the SCN does not discuss any evidence or contain even the allegation that the Appellant had connived with Ram Gupta or any other person by illicit diversion – penalty set aside - C/410/2008-SM(BR) - 210/2009-SM(BR)(PB,), - Dated:- 20-2-2009 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri V.R. Sethi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S. Gautam, DR, for the Respondent. [Order].- The facts of the case, in brief, leading to this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the importer, Shri Ram Gupta, the shipping line M/s. PIL Mumbai Pvt. Ltd. and also the present Appellant for demand of duty on the goods illicitly diverted and also imposition of penalty on them. The duty on the goods amounting to Rs. 7,09,960/- was demanded only from Shri Ram Gupta and other noticees including the present Appellant were show caused for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 "for their acts of omission and commission". The SCN was adjudicated vide order dt. 27-2-07 by which the duty demand in respect of goods as made in the SCN, was confirmed against Shri Ram Gupta and penalty was under Section 112 was imposed on Shri Ram Gupta as well as on other noticee including the Appellant in this case. The penalty impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant and thus the Asstt. Commissioner's order bringing in the allegation of abetment is beyond the SCN. Moreover, no evidence has been produced by the Department indicating any abetment of the appellant in the illicit diversion of the goods. 2.2 Shri S. Gautam, learned Sr. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order pleading that since as per the requirement of Regulation 3 of the Transhipment Regulations, the Appellant had executed transit bond, they have to face the consequences as per Regulation 4 in the case the goods do not reach the destination as in view of the violation of these Regulations, penalty has been rightly imposed on the Appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act and that in this regard, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
