Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 942 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (11) TMI 942 - CESTAT CHENNAI - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 403 (Tri. - Chennai) - Imposition of penalty on bank branch manager - Issue of bank guarantee without following proper procedure of law - violation under banking regulations - import of "Mulberry Raw Silk" in the guise of "Duppion Silk" and also misuse of DEEC scheme by the importers. - Held that:- Departmetn have enforced the bank guarantee and the bank has issued two Demand Drafts - The same was deposited in the Customs with challans. Ther .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion action and the Bank suspended him and subsequently removed from service in the year 1997. - Decided in favour of Appellant. - Appeal Nos.C/195/2002 & C/209/2002 - FINAL ORDER No.40910-40911/2015 - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Shri A.K.Jayaraj, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) ORDER The appeals are directed against two Orders-In-Orignals passed by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. As the issue is common in both the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mporter and also on various co-noticees and imposed penalty of ₹ 1 lakh imposed on the appellant in each appeal under Section 112(a) as well as under 112(b) of the Customs Act. I find that there are no appeals filed by other importers and co-noticees. Therefore, this order is confined only to the present appeals filed by appellant against imposition of penalty. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that appellant was working as a Branch Manager and issued only Bank Gu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ravention of any of the provisions of Central Excise Act. Even if there is any violation under banking regulations, Customs Act cannot be invoked for imposition of penalty. Further, he submits that there was no forgery of bank guarantee or any fraudulent issue of bank guarantee as the department have already enforced the said bank guarantee and realised the money from the bank towards the realisation of dues. He also submits that this is not a case where any licence was issued and misused by app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

olman of India Ltd. Vs CCE 1996 (88) ELT 641 (SC) (iii) UOI Vs Kanunga Industries AIR 1990 (SC) 2190 (iv) State of Kerala Vs M.M. Mahew & Another AIR 1978 (SC) 1571 (v) Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa 1978 ELT (J 159). (vi) Trilok chand Jain Vs State of Delhi AIR 1977 SC 666 (vii) Shri Ram Vs The State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R for the Revenue reiterated the findings and submits that bank guarantee is nothing but cash payment for clearances for duty free g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of both sides, I find that the limited issue in this case is imposition of penalty on the appellant who issued bank guarantees as a Branch Manager employed in the Bank of Madura. The allegation made in the adjudication order against the appellant is reproduced as under :- "37. Shri A. Vaiyapuri, Manager, Bank of Madura, Bangalore signed the bank guarantees for M/s.Exim Silk without following the rules and with a view to facilitate the illegal import of the goods. It is also clear that he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bangalore appears liable for penal action under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 as he appears to have colluded with Shri Omar Farook, Proprietor of M/s.Moin Impex, Bangalore and with Shri R. Sadagopan, Proprietor of M/s.Exim Aides, Bangalore, and abetted the acts of omission and commission that had rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) (m) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. 27.6 Shri A. Vaiyapur, the then Branch Manager N.R. Road, Branch, Bank of Madura Ltd., B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

proprietor. No specific allegations have been brought out. It is also a fact that as a Branch Manager he has issued Bank Guarantee and it is not the case of issue of forged bank guarantee as it is confirmed by the department vide letter dt. 14.2.2014 signed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs addressed to Joint Commissioner (AR) wherein he has confirmed that they have enforced the bank guarantee and the bank has issued two Demand Drafts dt. 6.8.97 and 4.8.97 for ₹ 5,30,000/- and ₹ 30, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

out by the department for abetment or collusion or commission or omission in relation to import of goods to establish contravention of provisions of Customs Act. There is no clear cut evidence produced by the appellant. Being a Branch Manager of the bank, mere introducing a Customer to another customer is not a violation. Even if he has issued a bank guarantee without collecting margin money from the persons it is only a violation of banking regulations not a violation under the Customs Act. I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version