TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation, in the light of Tribunal s decision in the case of H. Kumar Gems [ 2001 (2) TMI 246 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] . Thus, the demands are barred by limitation, penalties imposed upon the importers are set aside. Penalties imposed on Shri Prakash Mohta, Shri S.N. Baheti, Shri Kamlesh Mehta and Shri Rasiklal Mehta are also set aside. The penalty imposed upon Shri Mahendra Shah under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, is also set aside as, even though he admittedly had knowledge that the SILs were forged/fake, such knowledge is not sufficient to hold that there was any omission or commission on his part so as to render the imported silver/gold liable to confiscation u/s 111(d) and (o) of the Act. In the result, we set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rokers for clearance of gold and silver were forged and therefore not valid for the consignments in question. 3. The brief facts as unfolding from the Commissioner s order are that the office premises of one M/s. Gazebo and M/s. Mahavir Corporation, were searched by officers of DRI and copy of SIL No. 3536539, dt. 6-8-1997 issued to M/s. Track Industries, Kanpur, was recovered. The Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade, Kanpur informed that no such licence had been issued and that the signature and security seal of their Foreign Trade Development Officer had been forged. The proprietor of M/s. Gazebo, Shri R.T. Shah stated on 19-1-1998 that he had purchased the above bogus SIL from one Shri Sushil Kumar Lohia who, in turn admitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Shri Gulati used to provide bogus SILs and Shri Garodia used to sell them in market and give them a premium of 3%. 4. Based on the above, show cause notice dt. 6-4-1999/29-4-99 was issued to the importer proposing recovery of duty, together with interest, confiscation of the imported goods and imposition of penalty. Notice was issued to the others, proposing penal action under Section 112(a) of the Act. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner who held that the gold/silver imported was liable to confiscation, confirmed the demand raised under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, and imposed penalties as set out in the opening paragraph of this order; hence these appeals. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. We find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the Revenue by the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Hico Enterprises [2005 (189) E.L.T. 135 (Tri. - LB)] Order No. M. 1152/WZB/05C-I, dt. 20-9-05. The further argument that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply in such cases and the limitation period is to be computed from the date of discovery of the forgery is not tenable, in the light of the specific statutory provisions for limitation in the Customs Act. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of ICI India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta [2003 (151) E.L.T. 336 (Tribunal)] relied upon by ld. DR is distinguishable for the reason that the notice in that case was issued within the normal period of limitation under Section 28, and not under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
