9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. A/212-217/WZB/2005/C-I dated 22-3-05, 2005 (185) E.L.T. 95 (T). The contention of the applicant is that the Bench while passing the final order failed to take into consideration the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Godrej Soaps v. CCE Mumbai [2004 (174) E.L.T. 25 (Tri.- LB) = 2005 (118) ECR 21 (Tri.- LB)] even though the case is cited before it. We observe that indeed the case was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon by the appellants. In the said decision rendered in the context of provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act the Tribunal held that when the demand gets dropped on any account penal provisions cannot survive against the assessee. The Bench also held that for similar reason confiscation of the goods which is penal in nature cannot be upheld. 5.We are at a loss to understand how the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 474 kgs. of the goods sought to be cleared under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act as he held that the said goods (84 bales) were imported without a valid import licence. Under Section 111(d) any goods imported or attempted to be imported in contravention of any law for the time being in force are liable to confiscation. They need not be necessarily dutiable. Thus, even when no duty is demanded on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory committed several acts of commission and omission during the course of clearance of the goods which brought within the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act. A firm is responsible for the acts of its employees/partners. Vicarious liability exists and therefore a penalty under the said section is imposable. 7.It is also contended that the Bench's observation in the impugned order that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
