9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was engaged in the activity of purchase and sale of DEEC licences. As part of this activity, he purchased Licence No. 06000373 dated 14-12-1998 from M/s. Navkar Corporation, on behalf of M/s. Surhit International and, on behalf of the latter, sold it to M/s. Farida Prime Tannery. That licence was in the name of M/s. Hameed Leather Industries. The above transaction took place on 29-9-1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act. The decision of the original authority was affirmed by the first appellate authority. The present appeal is against the penalty imposed on the appellant. 2. Aggrieved by the above decision the importers (M/s. Farida Prime Tannery) had filed Appeal No. C/218/2005 with the Tribunal and the same was disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t inasmuch as there is no material on record to show that he had anything to do with the manipulation of entries in the above advance licence. This claim has been contested by learned SDR on the basis of the statement given by the appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It is submitted that the appellant admitted his offence and that there is no valid retraction of such admission. In his r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which fact is obvious from the specific reference made in Para 22 ibid. Hence I am unable to agree with learned counsel's submission that the appellant's statement was a general statement covering all licences brokered by him. The above finding of the original authority stands upheld by the first appellate authority. Nevertheless, it is not challenged in the present appeal. In the absence of any c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
