TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) visited the General Post Office on 11th October, 2002 and located the said two parcels in presence of two independent witnesses including Sh. O.P.Sharma Deputy Chief Post Master, GPO. Detailed examination of the parcels revealed that the description of the items and quantities was not available on the consignment note affixed on the packages, although, value of the parcels was declared in terms of Singapore dollar on the invoices pasted on the same. The invoices showed that the parcels contained 500 pieces of computer chips, which were inspected by the authorities for verification and eventually seized by the DRI Officers under proper punchanama drawn on the spot. The DRI officers then visited the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same. A penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs was also levied on Sh.Atul Malhotra, proprietor of M/s. Abhishek Electronics, a sum of Rs.l lakh on Sh.Kishori Lal and a sum of ₹ 50,000/- on Sh. Rajesh Kumar. The penalty imposed on Sh. Vishnu Kumar, employee of the Speed Post Centre was, however, restricted to ₹ 10,000/- only. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which have been disposed of by the said Tribunal in terms of the common order impugned in the present writ petition. A reading of the said order shows that so far as confiscation and enhancement of the value of the imported consignment of computer parts is concerned, M/s.Abhishek Electronics did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter before it. That being so, the basis on which the orders of penalty were passed stood affirmed by the Tribunal on the concession made by the importer. What then remained was the question of penalty to be levied upon each one of those who had been found involved in the illegal clearance of the parcels without payment of duty. The Tribunal has keeping in view the facts of the case and the amount of differential duty involved, reduced the amount of penalty levied by the adjudicating authority. Even assuming that the amount of penalty could have been reduced further having regard to the nature of the evasion and the role played by each one of those involved in the same yet the mere fact that a lesser penalty could have been imposed may not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
