9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals are filed by the appellant-assessee against Order-in-Original No.21/Com/Noida/2009 dated 14/05/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Noida. 2. The issue in these appeals filed by the appellant-CHA is that the appellant-CHA have challenged the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner under Section 114 (i), of Customs Act, 1962. 3. The brief facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that there was substantial difference in the prices between non-Basmati rice variety and Basmati rice variety, found in the consignments. The goods were put under detention. Subsequently, statement of the exporter was recorded, who stated that he had placed order for Basmati rice on the supplier. After some initial loading, he entrusted the work of loading and supervision to one Surrender Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CHA appellant and his manager Sushil Mallik, the penalty was imposed under Section 114 (i) of Customs Act, 1962. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant CHA is before this Tribunal on the ground that there is no basis on which the Commissioner have observed that the appellant CHA have acted in a very callous manner, deliberately mislead the facts and failed to perform his duties as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een callous and/or negligent. Further, no particular clause of the Regulation 13 of the CHALR, 2004 which have been violated, has been pointed out in the show cause. In this view of the matter, I find that the penalty imposed is not sustainable.
7. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside.
(Dictated in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
