9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Per: M.V. Ravindran: By this common order, we are proposing to dispose the following stay petitions which are filed for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts of penalties against each applicant. SN Name of the appellant Penalty under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 Penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 1 M/s Kailashpati Chemicals & Mineral Ind Rs.25 lakhs Rs.25 lakhs 2 Shri Sumerpuri Goswami Rs.25 lakhs Rs.25 lakhs 3 M/s Indian Potash Ltd. Duty of Rs.62,39,145/- with interest and equal amount of penalty - 4 Shri Pravin Saraf Rs.50 lakhs Rs.50 lakhs 5 M/s Kumar & Brothers Rs.25 lakhs Rs.25 lakhs 6 Shri Vijay Singh Gohil Rs.25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash Ltd is over once he sells the goods to dealer who are authorized. It is his submission that the confirmation of demand along with interest and imposition of penalty on the appellant is incorrect. 4. Shri R. Subramanya, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of M/s Kumar & Brothers would submit that the appellant herein in this case are the registered dealers of fertilizers. It is his submission that they are registered with the State Government and are required to procure the same from registered importer of fertilizers and in this case they are M/s Indian Potash Ltd. He would bring to our notice the fact that they had maintained proper record as required under Fertilizer Control Act and submit that there cannot be any penalty imposed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntainers and what is going for export. It is his submission that in any case, penalty under Section 112(b) will not survive and penalty under Section 114(i) should also be waived as the appellant herein is a small person and does not have any mean of remuneration. It is his submission that the same argument will hold good for Shri Sumerpuri Goswami also. 7. Ld. Counsel Shri H.D. Dave appearing on behalf of Shri Vijay Singh Gohil would submit that the said appellant is a partner of M/s Jay Bhavani Roadlines. It is his submission that the appellant herein was only engaged for vehicles to be given which he did so and he has been penalized under Sections 112(b) and 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962. It is his submission that the there is no role att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority that one of their employees had lent his name for a consideration of Rs.200 per container for the export is an issue for which they have already removed the employee and said act was done by the employee on his personal capacity. 10. Ld. D.R. submits that all the appellants herein have played some role or other in trying to defraud the Revenue by exporting MOP which is a fertilizer in the guise of industrial salt. It is his submission that the role played by each of them needs to be appreciated from the evidences on record, which indicate that the every individual had some role or other to play. 11. We have considered the submissions made at length from all sides and perused the records. At the outset, the allegatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciated by adjudicating authority. In view of this, we allow the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts of penalties imposed on Shri Shantilal Mali and take up the appeal itself for disposal and set aside the impugned order to the extent it has imposed penalties on Shri Shantilal Mali (in Appeal No.C/148/2012) with a direction to adjudicating authority to reconsider his case after following the principles of natural justice. Ld.Counsel undertakes to co-operate with the adjudicating authority as and when personal hearing is granted to them. 13. In sum, the appeal of Shri Shantilal Mali is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of his case an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uffed in the containers as the documents indicated consignment as consisting of industrial salt for export. Accordingly, the applicant M/s Classic Freight Forwarders has made out a case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 by the adjudicating authority. iii) As regards the penalties imposed under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 on others, we find that the roles played by each appellant needs to be appreciated from the evidences on record. It is seen from the Order-in-Original that the adjudicating authority has recorded findings which indicate that these appellants had a definite role in trying to export MOP in the guise of industrial salt. In our view, these evidences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
