TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fiscation under Section 111 shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater. - seized goods was valued worth ₹ 4,00,000/-. Therefore, the appellate authority imposed the penalty. The penalty imposed upon the appellants is less than the value of the goods, which has been upheld by the learned Tribunal - Decided against assessee. - Customs Appeal No. - 3 of 2015, Customs Appeal No. - 1 of 2015, Customs Appeal No. - 2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla And Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan, JJ. For the Appellant : A. P. Mathur, R. C. Pathak For the Respondent : Illigible, Dipak Seth ORDER We have heard Mr. A. P. Mathur, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 days of detention of the goods in question from the godowns of the Trade Tax Department where the goods were kept after verifying the contents of the packages by opening the same by the Trade Tax Officers? The reliefs as prayed by the appellants are as follows: That the appellants, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may expeditiously be pleased to allow the present Appeal on the basis of substantial questions of law and grounds formulated in the Memo of Appeal. The appellants are engaged in the business of the Transport and Logistics services all over India by hiring trucks of other owners when required for transporting their customers goods. They had hired one truck bearing Truck No. HR38M/9077 for transportation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscated the truck and proposed to release the same on payment of ₹ 1,00,000/-. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has decided the appeal in casual manner without considering the appellants' reply to show cause notice as well as the grounds raised in the appeal completely on technical ground on the question of penalty. Therefore, the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal to be heard on merit after noticing the parties. Per contra, Mr. Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the Customs Department has submitted that the Commissioner of Customs had examined the facts of the case in detail and framed the following issues for determination: A. Whether the show cause notices i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he seized of foreign origin small cylinders Refrigerant 22 worth ₹ 4,00,000/-, he has given the finding that M/s Bengal Automobiles, who was consignor of the seized cylinders and Shri Arjun Das as well as Shri R. Sehgal who have to take the delivery of the consignment, were not found available at the given address, which led the Commissioner to arrive at conclusion that the persons involved with seized cylinders were aware of its foreign origin character and they had deliberately shown fictitious addresses to ensure that law enforcing agencies should not reach to them in case of interception of the goods. The markings present on the packing and seal of seized gas cylinders also suggests its foreign origin character. The learned Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow that the Commissioner also considered to impose personal penalties on the following noticees, under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962: i. M/s Om Logistics Ltd Rs.2,50,000/- ii. Shri Baijnath Prasad Rs.30,000/- iii. Shri Kuldeep Singh Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved appellants filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Since the appellants, who are the transporter of the goods did not own the goods nor the trucks as they simply claimed themselves as transporter without having ownership over the truck and seized foreign goods, the Tribunal did not fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
