9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition to make a pre-deposit as stated above and there is no infirmity or excessive jurisdiction in the order impugned. The Commissioner of Customs, having found that there was an evasion of duty drawback, has imposed penalty as stated above. If at all there is any ground to challenge the said Order-in-Original, statue provides right of appeal on condition to make a pre-deposit of drawback and penalty deemed fit by the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal is now put to challenge in these appeals. Though there is a change in law as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is very conscious of the fact that the taxation regime as prevailing in the year 2019 to be applied in the case in hand. Any change of law shall not g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porters under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. a) ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on M/s Shri V. Satheesh, proprietor of V.V.S. Exports, Tuticorin. b) ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on Shri T. Latton Durai, Proprietor of M/s Santhosh Imports & Exports, Tuticorin. c) ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on Shri A. Maria John Bosco, Proprietor of M/s St. Antony Imports & Exports, Tuticorin. d) ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on Shri S. Sivakaminathan, Proprietor M / s Shivaa Impex, Tuticorin. e) ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on Shri G.Subash Chandra Bose, Proprietor of M / s Gayathri International Imports & Exports, Panagudi. f) ₹&nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... St. John Britto Exports Logistics, Tuticorin, and M/s Luxury Exports, Tuticorin, under Section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962." 2. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, two appeals along with stay applications filed by one Vijay Anand and Kalandar Seeni Ahmed. The appellate Tribunal, while considering the application for waiver of pre-deposit to avail right of appeal, had taken into consideration the plea of these two appellants and had passed the following order:- "7 We are not impressed with the plea of financial hardships raised by Shri Kalandar Seeni Ahmed. This plea is not supported by any evidence. In the facts and circumstances, we direct Shri Kalandar Seeni Ahmed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Innocence raised by the consultant for Shri VijayAnand. The penalty imposed on him is to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs. The learned consultant has submitted inter alia that his client received an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per transaction totaling to Rs. 6 lakhs. This itself would prima facie indicate a deliberate involvement of Shri Vijay Anand in the fraudulent transactions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to direct Shri Vijay Anand to predeposit an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs towards the penalty imposed on him. In respect of the joint and several liability fastened on him, there shall be waiver and stay. In the result, Shri Vijay Anand shall deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) within four weeks and report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on conducted by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence of Tuticorin Unit and a sum of Rs. 1,94,26,197/- mis-declared as value of the goods exported found to be false and the Commissioner of Customs re-determined the value of the goods as Rs. 13,14,400/- since 14 exporters had exported worn-out goods by misdeclaring it as shoe upper, bed valence, inflatable balls and toys, garments and fabrics by valuing goods unduly in excess with an intention to avail duty drawback facility. Therefore, the Commissioner had rightly held the appellants guilty of mis-declaration and imposed penalty as stated above. 6. The appellate Tribunal, having found gravity of the offence, granted leave to prefer appeal on condition to make a pre-deposit as stated above an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
