9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this observation of the Commissioner, as found from his order is not based on any other corroborative evidence to the effect that such blood relationship had made the Appellant easily accessible to the modus operandi of the manufacturing company namely M/s. Sumira Plastic, who allegedly violated the terms of DEEC scheme. Appellant has demonstratively stated during his examination that after the payment made through cheque was bounced back, he served his relationship with the partnership firm M/s. Sumira Plastic from where her sister herself had resigned long back in 1996. The order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumba is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed. - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Mayur Shroff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the main noticee, whose appeal got dismissed for non-compliance of stay order, but this Tribunal vide its order No. A/85516/2022 dated 13.05.2022 in Appeal No. C/907/2012 had absolved liability of other co-noticees by setting aside penalty of ₹1,00,000/- imposed on him also as a job worker for which Appellant case is required to be determined in conformity to the same finding in which the case of other Appellant/co-noticee was decided. 4. In response to such submission learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department submitted that this Appellant is a relative of the partners of main Appellant-Manufacturer and had done the act with full knowledge and information, for which penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d long back in 1996. Be that as it may, the relevant finding of this Tribunal in respect of other co-noticee Shri Kumar Sayani passed on dated 13.05.2022 runs as follows: Only because the appellant knew Shri G.N. Pai cannot be a reason for claiming that the appellant was in hand in glove for the fraud committed by Shri Pai in diverting the goods imported by him under DEEC scheme. Appellant s company was acting in normal job work activities on the material provided by Shri G.N. Pai. It is not even the case of the Revenue that certain documents or certain evidences have been received showing that the appellant could be attributed with a positive knowledge about the imported nature of the goods In view of the above findings of this Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
