9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. CAO CC(PMS)/22/2007 ADJ.ACC, dated 31-12-2007. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order, which imposed a penalty of Rupees one lakh on him under the provisions of Section 114(iii) of the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r imposing penalty on the appellant herein is incorrect for more than one reason. Firstly, the synopsis statements recorded of the appellant (as recorded at paragraph numbers 10 and 11 of the impugned order) clearly indicates that the appellant had denied that they had any role in filing incorrect shipping bills. It is also recorded that the appellant herein specifically stated that the shipping b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shipment was made in the name of M/s. Manna Enterprises appeared to have connived in the export of scrap by declaring these as cobalt bearing high speed gear cutters with the active help of Mr. Sushil Dhuri an employee of M/s. A.R. Marines P. Ltd. who was holding the pass issued by M/s. A.R. Marines and has also signed the shipping bills on behalf of M/s. A.R. Michael. 30. There is no force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no statement implicating the appellant nor it is brought on record that Shri Sushil Dhuri is one of the employees of the appellant. In the absence of any other evidence to implicate the appellant herein, the penalty imposed on him is not in consonance with the law. 8. In view of the foregoing, and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the findings of the adjudicating authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
