TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellants are not liable to any penal action. With this observation, we allow all the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants, if any. - C/281, 289-292/2007 and C/206, 245-246/2009 - A/2257-2264/ WZB/AHD/2009 - Dated:- 12-11-2009 - S/Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and Ashok Jindal, Member (J) S/Shri P.V. Seth, Alok Barthwal, J.C. Patel and Amrish Neema, Advocates,for the appellant. Shri Rajendra Nagar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - Appeal numbers C/281, 289 to 292 of 2007 are arising out of a common order-in-original No. KDL /Commr/13/2007 dated 20-2-2007. The facts of the case are that there were clearances of duty free imports under DEEC scheme in the names of firms M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he findings that all these persons as CHA and their employee handled clearances of the goods without payment of duty in the name of M/s. Associated Industries, on the basis of bogus/forged post advance licenses. 3. The issue involved in all these appeals before us is, whether penalties under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable on the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants were no-where having the knowledge that licenses are forged/bogus against which they have got clearances of the goods. They further submitted that the statements of the appellants were recorded by the department and nowhere from the statements of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd no intention to violate Customs law on appellant's part is proved. Failure/negligence, if any, on appellant's part, not to justify imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. They further relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. R.S. Travels, Hyderabad v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2007 (217) E.L.T. 384 (Tri. - Bang) = 2007-TIOL-1351- CESTAT-BANG, wherein it was held that the statements of importers alone is not an evidence and the role has to be proved. They further relied upon the decision in the case of Premier Instruments Controls Limited v. CC (Airport) Chennai - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 139 (Tri.- Chennai) wherein it was held that penalty on CHA who apparently acted in a bona fide manner in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the licenses and allowed the clearances of goods. From the facts and circum-stances of the case, Revenue has not made out the case that the appellants were having any knowledge of the forged/bogus licenses, during the process of clearances of the goods. The reliance placed by the SDR has no support to him, as in that case the appellants were having knowledge of mis-declaration before clearances of the goods. Whereas, the reliance placed on by the advocate for the appellants support their contention and we are also with agreement that when the appellants were not having any knowledge of bogus/forged licenses during the process of clearances of goods, the appellants are not liable to any penal action. With this observation, we allow all the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
