TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice for imposing penalties under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act remained undenied, appellants are liable to be penalized under Sec. 112(a) of the Customs Act, they have not produced any evidence of the latest financial status. Hence the plea of financial hardships is unsustainable, appellants directed to pre-deposit - C/919-921/2009-Mum - S/237-239/2011-WZB/C-I(CSTB), - Dated:- 10-6-2011 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Sahab Singh, JJ. Shri T. Viswanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A. K. Prasad, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. These applicants/appellants are Directors of the company M/s. Parasrampuria Industries Ltd., and amongst them, Shri Sanjay Parasrampuria is the Managing Director. All o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay applications of the Directors on merits. This is the circumstances in which these stay applications are arising today. 3. Ld. JCDR raises a preliminary objection. He submits that these stay applications were heard and disposed of by the Bench on 3-12-10 and, therefore, these applications cannot be heard once again. According to the ld. JCDR, the appeals of the Directors are liable to be dismissed. Ld. counsel for the applicants/appellants is not opposed to today s proceedings. 4. After considering the submissions, we have to overrule the objection raised by the JCDR for the following reasons :- (a) The benefit of waiver and stay had been granted to these parties on 3-12-10 subject to condition. Today it is not in dispute that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s raised by these parties in their stay applications have become alive for consideration. 5. We have heard both sides on merits as well. Ld. counsel for the appellants submits that, neither in the show-cause notice nor in the impugned order, there is any valid reason for imposing penalties on the appellants under Sec. 112(a) of the Act. It is submitted that these appellants did not concede penal liability at any stage. The statement given by the authorised signatory of the company under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act did not incriminate them, either. There is no other material on record to justify the penalties imposed on the appellants. Ld. counsel has also relied on case law. He has cited the following decisions :- (1) Oswal Paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s bench, ld. counsel submits no copy of the income tax returns filed by these parties is available. In any case, there is no documentary evidence of the latest financial status of these appellants. 7. Ld. JCDR points out that none of these appellants responded to the summons issued by the investigating agency, that Shri Sanjay Parasrampuria (Managing Director of the company) was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company as per the statement voluntarily given by the authorised signatory under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act, that the Managing Director is the person who executed DEEC bond and was aware of the legal and contractual obligations of the company during the material period. Ld. JCDR has also relied on the decision in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, by commissions and omissions, rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Sec. 111 of the Customs Act and also rendered themselves liable to penalty under Sec. 112 of the Act. These allegations were not denied by any of these appellants who did not care to reply to the show-cause notice. Prima facie, therefore, these appellants cannot contest the penalties imposed on them. 9. The decisions cited by the ld. counsel are all distinguishable in the aforesaid scenario. It has not been shown to us that the parties in those cases obtained favourable orders from this Tribunal without having replied to the show-cause notice issued to them by the department. Some of the decisions cited by the ld. counsel are even otherwise distinguishable. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. 112 of the Customs Act. The stated reasons for sustaining the penalty on the proprietor include the fact that Ms. Anjana Jagetia had full knowledge about the misrepresentation and misdeclaration in relation to import/export under advance licences, that she had signed many documents relating to applications for advance licences, that she had signed bank paper etc. It was therefore held that, by her omissions and commissions she rendered the imported goods liable to confiscation under Sec. 111(o) of the Act. In our view, the facts and circumstances in which the penalty on the proprietor of M/s. Vibhuti Exports was sustained by this tribunal are comparable to those of the present case. In the present case, the Managing Director was admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
