2011 (8) TMI 1077

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f CESTAT, the respondent was issued with a show cause notice calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why, (a)      the goods viz., raw mulberry silk imported under licence Nos. 3290797, dated 1-9-1994: 32981716, dated 15-3-1995 and 3291717, dated 15-2-1995 totally valued at Rs. 1,21,68,287/- as detailed in para 2 of the notice should not be confiscated under Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sued on the basis that the assessee had diverted the imported raw silk which was duty free imported goods under Advance Licence Scheme and after due process of law, the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) Chennai passed the impugned order confirming the Customs duty of Rs. 36,50,486/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each of two assessees and this order was questioned by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... could be imposed based on the statement of the co-accused in the absence of any corroborative evidence. The CESTAT had relied upon the following judgment of the Tribunal to hold that penalty cannot be imposed based on the statement of co-accused or co-noticee in the absence of corroborative evidence. In fact, a similar view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Orient Enterprises v. Collector of Cu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X