TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. The penalty is reduced from ₹ 10 lakhs to ₹ 3 lakhs. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Appeal No. C/86304 & 86305/2015 - A/86933-86934/16/SMB - Dated:- 9-3-2016 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Ms. Subra Karmakar, Advocte For the Respondent : Shri Kamal Puggal, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) ORDER These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No.52/Customs/Commr./2014 dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Aurangabad, whereby the adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs on the appellant company and penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs on Sales Executive name of the said company. The penalty was imposed in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that against the very same order in respect of other appellants which are on the same footing in the case of Scope Amra Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.C S.T., Aurangabad 2015 (324) ELT 724 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein the penalties imposed on the Scope Amra Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Mithran this Tribunal reduced the penalties, but in the said case the appellant were held guilty for non-compliance of Public Notice No. 17/2012. Therefore in view of this judgment no different view can be taken in the present case. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the penalties on the appellants were imposed for non-compliance of KYC norms as prescribed under Public Notice No. 17/2012. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the KYC norms of the freight forwarder, who order for container. The appellant has not taken the KYC norms of the exporter/person who has placed the order for container for the purpose of stuffing of the goods. I observed from this Tribunals order in the case of Scope Amra Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd.(supra), which was passed against the same impugned order and found that the persons involved in that case are on identical footing of the present appellant. In case of Scope Amra Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd.(supra), the following order was passed: In view of the facts of the present case, it is clear that the appellants, were not involved in the smuggling of Red Sanders for the reason that the containers were stuffed and sealed with Corrugated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, when the penalty is imposed on the companies, penalties on the employees are not warranted. As regard penalties on the appellant companies, I find that in view of the role of the companies, the lapse is only confined to the non-compliance of KYC and not involvement in the smuggling of Red Sanders. In view of this facts, I am of the view that the quantum of penalty on the appellant companies are very higher side and the appellant companies deserve reduction in the penalty imposed under Section 114(i). As regard the judgments relied upon by the ld. Counsel, I find that both the said judgments have not dealt with the Public Notice No. 17/2012, therefore, the ratio of the same are not applicable, hence distinguished. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
