TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wooden logs, which are prohibited items. - Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act is not inclined to re-appreciate the factual findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority and confirmed by the Tribunal. In the absence of any error of law pointed out by the appellant, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of penalty. - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. No. 408 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2014 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri S. Palani Kumar, for the Appellant. Shri Rajnish Pathiyil, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orate of Revenue Intelligence issued a show cause notice, dated 12-3-2008 to the appellant, who was at that point of time a cofeposa detenue and lodged in the Central prison, Madurai. The other noticees were M/s. Navamani Match Works, Mr. Ramasubbu @ Ramesh, Mr. Alibhai, Mr. B.A. Thomas and M/s. Sree Valli Shipping Transport, Tuticorin. One of the other noticee Mr. Ramasubbu @ Ramesh was also a cofeposa detenue at the said point of time, when the show cause notice was issued. In the said show cause notice, it was proposed to levy of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act and punishment under Section 135(1) (a) of the Act read with Sections 2(33), 2(39), 11 of the Customs Act and Section 11(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority considered the reply submitted by the appellant as well as the other co-noticees and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant on 30-9-2008, considered the case and recorded a finding that the declared export goods were stuffed inside the container CCSU 41740-5 picked up by the vehicle arranged by the appellant and Alibhai at M/s. Vijay Impex, Kovilpatti purportedly under the supervision of Central Excise officer and the container was sealed. The trailer laden with the sealed container was not taken to the port immediately, but taken to a godown at Palavantham, which was hired by the appellant, who posed himself as Sathish kumar of Madurai. Part of the quantity of safety matches was replaced there by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offence, the Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 7,50,000/- on the appellant. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the factual issue and after re-appreciating the materials, which were available on record, confirmed the penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 6. Firstly, it is to be pointed out that the issue involved in this appeal is purely a question of fact. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the allegations in the show cause notice, the reply given by the appellant, and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, has elaborately discussed about the complexity and the involvement of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
