Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 814

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s carried out at the instance and direction of Shri Liladhar of the said company as evident from the statement of Shri Dyaram S Rajde (Proprietor of Ashok Bulk Carriers), Shri Sanjay Ahuja (Export Executive of the said Company) and Shri Deepak S Joshi, (Customs Clerk of the said Company) as well as facts, which were specifically brought on record. - Company obtained DEPB license fraudulently and facilitated the various importers to import the goods duty free and imposition of penalty under Section 112 is justified. It is noted that the said Company exported the goods in irregular manner and penalty under 114 is warranted. It is further noted that the said company cleared the goods from DTA of SEZ in violation of the Central Excise Rules and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alleged that the said Company had wrongfully availed DEPB credit on Castor Oil exported by manipulating the same as DTA produced, whereas the goods originated from Kandla Special Economic Zone unit. It has also been alleged that the said Company obtained DTA License against the exports made out of the Castor Oil received from the Kandla Special Economic Zone and transferred such license to different importers, who availed exemption of customs duty under Notification No 34/97-CUS dtd 7.4.1997 as amended. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and also imposed penalties on the said Company and the appellants herein amongst others. The said Company filed appeals before the Tribunal, wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oods and the imposition of penalty under Section 112 cannot be invoked. The goods have already been exported and penalty under Section 114 cannot be sustained. It is a case of the Revenue that the goods were cleared from DTA to SEZ and the goods were ultimately exported and therefore Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be maintained. It is submitted that the confirmation of duty demand against the Company itself is bad in law and therefore question of imposition of penalty on the appellant does not arise. Imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act 1962 is not sustainable as there was no prohibition in force in respect of Castor Oil exported by the Company. Section 112 of the said Customs Act 1962 cannot be sustaine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re outsiders. We find that there was a demand of duty of ₹ 201.50 crores and ₹ 1.05 crores confirmed against the said company alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount of duty. The appeal of the said Company was dismissed for non-compliance of the Stay Order. So, there is no need to go into the merits of the case on export of the goods as the appeals of the said Company was dismissed. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the entire operation of evasion of duty and obtaining of DEPB license was carried out at the instance and direction of Shri Liladhar of the said company as evident from the statement of Shri Dyaram S Rajde (Proprietor of Ashok Bulk Carriers), Shri Sanjay Ahuja (Export Executive of the said Company) and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of penalty under Rule 26 is justified. 8. Regarding the imposition of penalty on Shri Sanjay, we find that the appellants categorically stated that he was appointed by Shri Liladhar to prepare export related documents and other office work. He had joined in the company at a young age of 23 years. It is also stated that he was a fresh and inexperienced candidate and had no practical knowledge about office work or preparation of export documents. The Adjudicating Authority, while dealing with the case of Shri Liladhar observed that Shri Sanjay was only an employee with the said Company and there is no evidence to show that he made any earnings by forging Bills of Lading etc., which brought direct earnings for the said Company and indire .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates