TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... muggled, penalties are set aside and the appeals are allowed - C/310-311 and 524-525/2007 - C/221-224/2011(PB) - Dated:- 1-6-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant. Shri Sonal Bajaj, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner vide which he has imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on M/s. New Amar Goods Carrier, New Delhi as also on their Chennai office under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on Shri Jai Prakash Sharma, Manager of M/s. New Amar Goods Carriers under Section 112 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Umesh . He however submitted that the complete address of either the consignor or the consignee is not available on the documents inasmuch as, they deliver the goods against the original bility issued by the Chennai office. He also submitted that he is neither aware nor concerned about the ownership of the seized goods. 5. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated by way of issuance of show cause notices proposing confiscation of the goods as also for imposition of penalty, inter alia, on the present appellants. During the course of adjudication, the appellants submitted that they are merely concerned with the booking and delivery of the cargo through railways and are not concerned with the contents of the cargo. As a carrier, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip of the same. The present proceedings relate to imposition of penalty upon the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner in his impugned order has not brought any evidence reflecting upon any knowledge on the part of the appellants as regards the tainted character of the cargo booked. The only reason for imposing penalties is that the said appellant has not taken the correct address of the consigner and consignee. However, as the appellants have clarified that the cargo is booked by their Chennai office and is delivered to consignee at Delhi after production of the original consignee receipt for which it may not be required by them to know the correct address of the consignor and consignee. Though we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
