TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them cannot be sustained - penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - C-51319-51328/14 - Final Order No. 61280-61288/2016 61312/2016 - Dated:- 31-8-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Satyapal, AR ORDER The appellants have filed these appeals as well as stay applications against the impugned order. As the issue involved is in an narrow compass, therefore, the appeals are taken up alongwith stay applications and are being decided by a common order. 2. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical and penalty has been imposed in each case in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the fraud find mentioned in the Books of Accounts of the M/s. Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. He stated that some had apparently been signed by his employee Shri Pushpinder Singh and the payment had been entered in their records on the basis of the Invoices issued by their Ludhiana Office. It was also stated that as a routine matter the bills were raised by the Ludhiana Office and the payments so received was credited to their account. He further stated that their employee Sh. Pushpinder Singh committed all the fraud. The aforesaid fact is very well corroborative with statement of Shri Pall singh who in his statement has categorically stated that he had never met any person of the noticee company and had not appointed Sh. Ankush Khullar and Kap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 that he has not signed any of the Bill of Entries moreover none of the Bills of Entries had been signed or handed over to any other person who are party to the fraud. Moreover the signatures of the Director of the company have been forged by other person, which has not been controverted by the Co-Noticee Shri Pushpinder Singh. I find that the Importer in his statement has stated that he had not known and have not dealt with M/s Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. or any of the employees of the C.H.A. Company. Also the Noticee Sh. Ankush Khullar and Kapil Oberoi in their statements have stated that they never knew the Director of the C.H.A. Company and have not dealt with Sh. Pall Singh Lohia. 61 As regards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... role played by the employees of the Noticee, and also keeping in mind the negligence. I am of the view that the Noticees have failed to exercise greater vigilance on its employees, the conduct of both the Noticees ipso facto in my view would attract levy of penalty commensurate to the role as per facts and circumstances of the case. 4. As is clear from the above there is no direct evidence on record showing that Unisons Clearing Pvt. Ltd. which is a CHA firm, was directly involved in the fraudulently activity of importers. The adjudicating authority has observed that neither importer knew the appellant nor the appellant has signed any document and it was only their employees who were creating the problem and the mischief. In the absenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
