TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... played which could be penalized under Sec 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. Penalty if any could have been imposed upon the importer company as per the relied upon case laws – penalty not imposed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/350/98 & C/688/99 - ORDER No. FO/A/75786-75787/16 - Dated:- 5-8-2016 - Shri H. K. Thakur, Member ( Technical ) And Shri P. K. Choudhary Member ( Judicial ) Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. C. Jena, ADC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur Appeal NO. C/350/1998 has been filed by appellant La Grande Projects Ltd (La Grande) and appeal No. C/688/1999 has been filed by appellant Sh. Natwar Dalmia who is the father of Sh. Aditya D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the ITC Bond undertaking given to the department. 3.1 That similar cases were booked against Appellant La Grande at Mumbai Indore as per Para-23 of the OIO dt 22/11/1997. That the case made at Mumbai for the same goods and on the same issue was adjudicated by Commissioner of Customs-II, Mumbai under OIO CAO/ No. 155/96 CAC/ CCI dt 18/12/96. That under OIO dt 18/12/96 no penalty was imposed upon any of the noticees including Natwar Dalmia and only a penalty of ₹ 5 lakh was imposed on La Grande. That Revenue filed appeal with CESTAT Mumbai, interalia , on the grounds that penalty on Ritu Dalmia and Natwar Dalmia was required to be imposed. That appeal of the Revenue was dismissed against Natwar Dalmia under final order No. C-II/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were cleared under ITC bond and re-warehousing certificate was not produced by La Grande. That Natwar Dalmia was the brain behind the entire fraud as stated by Sh. Aditya Dalmia Sh. B.D. Ghosh both Directors of La Grande. Learned AR made the bench go through Pares 6 7, on internal pages 3 to 10 of the OIO dt 22/11/97, to argue that final decisions in the imports of impugned good, were taken by Natwar Dalmia. That Adjudicating authority has considered these aspects while imposing exemplary higher penalty of ₹ 105 lakh as the imported goods were not available for confiscation. Learned AR strongly defended the order passed by the Adjudicating authority. 5. Heard both sides perused the case records. The issue involved in Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing observations have been made by CESTAT Delhi in Para-6 6. It is well settled that the rights and obligations of a limited company are the rights and obligations of that legal person and not of Managers of share holder. In such a case, the liability of a shareholder would be limited to his shareholding, be he a promoter of not. In the present case, the findings are that the company failed to carry out its export obligation. Therefore, the liabilities will have to be borne only by the Company. There is no finding of fraud, or misappropriation against the present appellant. In such a case, penalty on the officer of the company is not permissible. Section 112 of the Customs Act speaks of any person, who in relation to any goods, does or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
