Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 1141 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

2016 (11) TMI 1141 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - TMI - 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 mischi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

R 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 the provisions of Section 112 of Customs Act. 3. Without going into the details of the matters involv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Singh and Shri Karnail singh who were looking 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arently 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 statem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ingh Lohia were forged, still the Bills of Entry 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted the services of his employee i.e. Sh. Pushpinder 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

osited by the employees of the company in the routine 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 helpe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version