9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 100% EOU, imported 78114 Mtr. And 88289.32 sq.meter of Polyester Fabrics without payment of duty under Notification No.53/97-Cus dated 3.6.97. It was alleged by the department that the goods imported by them have been cleared in the domestic market without payment of duty showing as deemed export to M/s. Anikit Textiles and M/s. Shree Om Textiles. It is alleged in the show-cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in para 13 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that these exports do not have any bearing on the duty-free input of raw materials by M/s. Satyam Garments. He further submitted that in sub-para 6 of para 13, the Commissioner has held that M/s. Ankit Textiles has abetted/tried to abet the fraudulent activity of M/s. Satyam Garments executed by its proprietor Shri Hitesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills which showed the exports of the goods received from M/s. Satyam Garments and M/s. Ankit Textiles has fabricated the Shipping Bills on behalf of M/s. Satyam Garments and they have actively supported M/s. Satyam Garments in committing the offence. He, therefore, submitted that as per law they are liable to penalty under Sec.112 of the Customs Act. 4. Heard both sides. On going t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no proposal for confiscation in the show-cause notice. I also find that there is no confiscation of the goods in the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs. As held by the Tribunal in the decision cited by the appellant, penalty under Sec.112 cannot be imposed if the goods are not confiscated under Sec.111 of the Act. I, therefore, set aside the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
