9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the vicarious responsibility cannot be cast on the appellant and hence the penalty imposed on the appellant on this ground is not sustainable. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of RAJESH MAIKHURI, CUSTOM BROKER, RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI, EMPLOYEE VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI [ 2017 (9) TMI 1015 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] supports the above view where it was held that ' In the present case, the appellants, being authorized employees of the CHA, are apparently penalized for their act of abetting such violations by the importer. As already noted, we find that the evidences available in this case do not indicate to any such illegal act on the part of the CHA.' The penalty imposed on the appellant is not sustainable and accordingly, the penalty im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that penalty under Section 112(a) is not warranted in this case as the ingredients mentioned in the said section are not present in this case. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in the following cases:- (a) Rajesh Maikhuri Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2018 (363) ELT 274, (Tri. Del). (b) Commissioner of Customs Import Vs. Trinethra Imper Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2020 (372) ELT 332. By relying on the decisions cited above, the appellant prayed for setting aside the penalty imposed by them in the impugned order. 4. The Ld. AR submits that CHA is responsible for mis-declaration of the goods, for which he is liable for penalty. Accordingly, he supported the impugned order imposing penalty. 5. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order, the Original Authority recorded his findings regarding liability of the appellants for penalties. On careful perusal of the said findings, we note that the ingredients of Section 112(a) were not brought with any clarity, so that the penalties can be imposed on the appellants. Section 112(a) stipulates that a person shall be liable to penalty, who, in relation to any goods does or omits to do any act, which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or abets the doing or omission of such an act. In the present case, the appellants, being authorized employees of CHA, dealt with the documentation and processing of import consignments. They have acted on the basis of the documents and det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
