9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itten submissions with a request to consider the same and dispose of their appeals on merits.The covering letter for these written submissions specifically prays for dispensing with personal presence. The appellant in appeal (C/309/03) appears in person and reiterates the grounds of his appeal. 2. We have considered the submissions of Mr. Arun Kumar Badgamia (C/309/03) and the written submissions filed by the other appellants. We have also heard the learned JDR and considered his submissions. 3. A Bill of Entry was filed on 25.9.2002 by the CHA for M/s Sunrise Enterprises for clearance of a consignment consisting of Buckles, 'AAA' Pencil Cells and 'Bazel Sets without movement', totally valued at USD 11,775 (CIF Mumbai), imported from Hong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act. Shri S.K. Maruti stated, inter alia, that 'Sunrise Enterprises' was a firm setup by Shri. Arun Kumar Badgamia, that he (S.K. Maruti) was only signing documents as per instructions of Shri Arun Kumar Badgamia, that he did not have knowledge of any import or export, that he did not know the whereabouts of the goods, that the bank account for Sunrise Enterprises was opened and operated by Shri Arun Kumar Badgamia, that he was only signing cheques whenever instructed by Shri Arun Kumar Badgamia, that he was paid a salary of Rs 3000 per month by Shri Arun Kumar Badgamia. In his statement, Shri Arun Kumar Badgamia corroborated the version given by Shri S.K. Maruti. Further, when confronted with NIDB data of contemporan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were imposed on Shri Arun Kumar Badgamia and Shri S.K. Maruti under Section 112 (a) and Section 112 (b) of the Act respectively. The present appeals are directed against the Commissioner's order. 6. Shri Arun Kumar Badgamia submits that the penalty of Rs 50,000/- was imposed on him without any reason whatsoever. On a perusal of the impugned order, we have found no semblance of reason for the penalty on him. His appeal is liable to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly. 7. The Revenue's case for penalty on Shri S.K. Maruti is no better inasmuch as the impugned order does not disclose any reason for the penalty of Rs 25,000/- imposed on him. His appeal is also allowed. 8. Insofar as the appeal of M/s Sunrise Enterprises (hereinafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing what is claimed to be contemporaneous import prices of Buckles and Bazel sets without movement. We find that this kind of material was not furnished or referred to by Shri Arun Kumar Badgamia at the time of giving confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Once enhanced value was accepted under Section 108 of the Customs Act, no further proof was required for the Customs authorities to assess the goods, particularly as the confessional statement was never retracted. In this connection, a decision of the apex court cited by the learned JDR is relevant. In the case of Commissioner vs Systems and Components Pvt Ltd 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme had ruled thus: "It is a basic and settled law that what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
