TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement has also not been tested by providing x-examination of the deponent - The appellants have also contended that no outsourcing done without the permission of the Commissioner - there is no justifiable reason to impose penalty upon the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/40480/2017 - 41594/2017 - Dated:- 10-8-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of ₹ 25,000/- on the appellant in terms of the provisions of Regulations 12 (8) of HCCAR, 2009. 2. As per facts on record, appellant is a Customs Cargo Service provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cargo declared and there is no evidence to show that the same was opened in between and substituted with red sanders. 6. On the above basis proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 14.03.2016, proposing to suspend/revoke approval of appointment granted under HCCAR,2009 as also to impose penalty upon them. The appellant contested the said proposals, which contentions did not find favour with Commissioner, who imposed a penalty of ₹ 25,000/- upon them. 7. After hearing both sides and after going through the impugned order, I find that the main reliance by the adjudicating authority, for imposition of penalty is the statement of the driver. For better appreciation, reasoning ado ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... railer intercepted by the officer, is the basis for holding against them. It is well settled law that a statement of the co-accused cannot be made the sole basis for penalizing the assessee without there being and independent corroboration from the independent source. The veracity of the said statement has also not been tested by providing x-examination of the deponent. The statement of the appellant's Dy. General Manager has clearly denied the use or substitution of the earlier cargo in the container mentioned by the driver. The appellants have also contended that no outsourcing done without the permission of the Commissioner. As such, I find no justifiable reason to impose penalty upon the appellant. The same is accordingly set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
