TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority. Apart from the statement there are ample documentary evidences which clearly establish that appellants were involved in aiding and abetting fraudulent availement of drawback. Therefore even if cross examination of the witnesses could not be conducted the same will not vitiate the proceedings carried out by the Adjudicating authority. As per facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences relied upon by the Adjudicating authority, I do not find any infirmity in the order. The impugned order is upheld and appeals are dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/86530 TO 86532/15 - A/90028-90030/16/SMB - Dated:- 1-9-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Shri. G.B. Yadav, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of M/s. Terai Overseas Ltd. During the investigation statements of Shri. Rajendra Kanodia, Shri. Raju Taneja of M/s. Kap Cargo, shri. S.M. Owais of M/s. Sotra Transport(I) Pvt Ltd and Prithipal Singh of M/s. Chanakya Exports, Delhi were recorded. In all the statements they have implicated that Shri. Rajendra Kanodia and Shri. Ajit Kumar Agarwala are the key persons involved in exports and fraudulent claim of drawback. The adjudicating authority, after remand twice by this Tribunal, confirmed the imposition of penalties on the appellants for their involvement of aiding and abetting fraudulent claim of drawback. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals), who has dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is relevant for drawback claim was utilized by another 3rd party, Aruna Impex and not M/s. Chanakya Exports and dealing with Chanakya exports goods on behalf of the appellant had got cancelled before the goods were exported by M/s. Chanakya Exports were made by M/s. Chanakya Exports by manipulating documents like, LC, contract and even shipping bills which shows that account of M/s. Terai Overseas Pvt Ltd was typed later after the exports. The statement of Rajiv Gupta of M/s. Rainbow Collection, Jaipur alleging that duty drawback amount received by M/s. Rainbow collection made on behalf of the M/s. Terai Overseas Pvt Ltd have been adjusted with job work charges payable to M/s. Terai Overseas Pvt Ltd is not relevant to this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the receipt of drawback. As per the overall facts it is coming out that they have active role in the entire modus operadi, accordingly they were rightly charged under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. He placed reliance on the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Collector of Customs, Madras and Others Vs. D. Bhoormull[1983(13) ELT 1546(S.C.)] according to which department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision, but what is required is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on its basis believe in the existence of the facts in issue. In view of the judgments in the present case there are corroborative evidences and conduct of thus persons which clearly indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent the material from Jaipur to Mumbai and again back to Mumbai only on the instructions of the Shri. Ajit Kumar Agarwala. It is M/s. Terai Overseas Pvt Ltd who applied to obtain import export code and Shri. Ajit Kumar Agarwala and his wife Smt. Shashikala Agarwala with Shri. Rajendra Kanodia as the other Director Shri. Ajit Kumar Agarwala even after resigning from the directorship, he is authorized signatory in the bank account. Even Shri. Ajit Kumar Agarwal resigning from the director ship of the company but he is holding stock of 50% of total share capital of M/s. Terai Overseas Pvt Ltd and of other two companies. Shri. Ajit Agarwala remained the guarantor for packing credit finance extending for Terai Overseas Pvt Ltd. Document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds having no commercial value in the name of M/s. Chanakya Export, supplying them necessary documents to forge and produced forged documents so that the exports could be made and drawback amount received from the exchequer. As regard the repeated request of the appellant for cross examination of various persons, I find that Adjudicating authority has called witnesses for cross examination but they were not available therefore case was denovo adjudicated on the basis of available evidences. I do not find anything wrong in deciding the case on the basis of evidences or whatsoever documents available with the Adjudicating authority. Apart from the statement there are ample documentary evidences which clearly establish t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
