Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Unisons Cearing Pvt. Ltd. Pall Singh Lohia, Director Versus CC, Amritsar

2016 (11) TMI 1141 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Imposition of penalty u/s 112 of Customs Act - CHA - fraudulent activities - Held that: - 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 absence of any direct involvement of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ll 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 the provisions of Section 112 of Customs Act. 3. Without going into the details of the matters involved in the imports, I reproduce the relevant Par .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

after his work at Ludhiana. I find that Shri Pall Singh Lohia has clearly stated in respect of Bills of Entries referred in Table 11, supra that the signatures on these Bills of Entries appeared to have been forged by Shri Pushpinder Singh; that they had no association with Shri Ankush Khullar or Shri Kapil Oberoi or of the companies/firms floated by the above named two persons and that it appeared that Shri Pushpinder Singh had committed the fraud by forging Sh. Pall Singh Lohia s signature an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y were with the Noticee No. 2. Though no fraud with revenue was committed in respect of these Bills of Entry, but the fact remains that the signatures on these Bills of Entry were forged by his employee Sh. Pushpinder Singh. The aforesaid fact has not been contradicted by the Noticee Sh. Pushpinder Singh during the time of the investigation till the adjudication against him and the allegations of forgery had been levies. 59. The aforesaid fact is corroborative to the fact that none of the o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inder Singh. 60. I find that the Noticee has stated in his statement recorded 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

outine manner and the suspicion of the fraud came to the knowledge of the Director of the company only after it was reported by its another employee i.e. Sh. Karnail Singh. Further the statements of Sh. Ankush Khullar and Sh. Kapil Oberoi revel that they were not the employees of the Noticee C.H.A. and were not in any way known to the Directors of the C.H.A. Company. However the employee of the company i.e. Sh. Pushpinder Singh appears to have helped the aforesaid Noticees i.e. Sh. Ankush Khulla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version