TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsignees. It is not in dispute that the appellant had contracted to deliver to consignees in India packets and parcels which were booked for carriage to India, from Singapore and Hongkong by M/s. Citi Links. The system of delivery of such packages as explained by the advocate for it, and has not contested by the departmental representative is as follows : The courier company abroad gives these goods to the onboard couriers, the person who actually carries the packets and parcels. The onboard couriers were employees of M/s. Patel Onboard Couriers (POBC) in this appeal. (We are not concerned with the onboard couriers of other courier companies for disposing of this appeal). The onboard courier passes on the packets and parcles to their local ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of penalty on the appellant follows upon the Commissioner s finding that its employees had been delivering packages similar to the packages seized from D.S. Gupta who was the owner of the concerns named in the preceding paragraph at 713 Navjeevan Society, Lamington Road, Mumbai although address of these firms were at 401 and 301 Navjeevan Society, Lamington Road. Commissioner s findings against the appellant are contained in two paragraphs of his order which runs to about 122 pages. These two paragraphs are reproduced hereunder : It has been admitted by Salim Khan, Ajay Desai, Prakash Jhaveri and Tushar Pandiya that they have been despatching the regular consignment addressed to M/s. Digi Systems and M/s. Tritech Systems through M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... friends would perhaps have been disclosed earlier. A consideration of the facts which are not in dispute would show that the appellant was in no way involved either in the importation of the goods, or their clearance through Customs. It came into the picture when it collected these packages from the overseas onboard courier after they had been cleared from Customs. In other words its role was limited to collecting the packages after clearance from Customs and delivering them to the local consignees. Nowhere is it alleged in the order that appellant had nothing to do beyond this. Viewed in this context it is not possible to accept the Commissioners finding that the appellant became liable for penalty. Clause (a) of Section 112 would apply to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of these employees under Section 112 we do not find it possile to understand how the penalty has been imposed on the company as a corporate entity. The statements of Madan indicate that he was told by Gupta who said that he was in fact the actual proprietor of the two firms and that the parcels should be delivered to him at 713. This may at the most indicate some basic carelessness on the part of the individual employee carrier of the company. It cannot be by itself mean a basis for imposition of penalty on the employee himself much less than the company. This alone would be sufficient to allow the appeal. 6. Apart from these considerations the basis for the imposition of the penalty by the Commissioner is unsound. He says that if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
