TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1962 upon the Appellant Shri Jairaj Kalyani and Shri Pawan Lulla - Held that: - it could not be proved that these Appellants have physically received offended import fabric. In their statement recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 / 1.08 of Customs ACT, 1962 there is no admission regarding the dealing of said offended goods. Merely on the basis of call details, it cannot be concluded that Appellant might have dealt with offended goods. These call details at the most lead to suspicion. However the same cannot take the place of tangible evidence. Therefore on the basis call details, the alleged guilt of Appellants cannot be proved - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/812, 813, 814/08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Appellants as under:- (1) Shri Govind Hariram Khubchandani ₹ 50,000/- (2) Shri Jairaj Kalyani ₹ 2,00,000/- (3) Shri Pawan Lulla ₹ 2,00,000/- Being aggrieved by the impugned order Appellants filled present appeals. 2, Shri JH Motwani Ld. Counsel with Shri. Chirag Shetty Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that as regard the appeal of Shri Govind Hariram Khubchandani he is merely a godown owner and provides his godown on rental basis for storage of goods. He was not aware what is offending goods and whether any violation of EOU provision was made. Therefore he was not knowingly involved in handling of offending goods. As regard Appellant Shri Jairaj Kalyani and Shri Pawan L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and perused the record. As regard penalty imposed on Shri Govind Hariram Khubchandani, I observed that he is possessing a godown wherein goods of various persons are stored and he charges rent of ₹ 800. Even though the goods were offended as cleared by EOU M/s Mayur Impex. But being a godown owner which has only interest of storage business cannot be expected to know the highly technical and legal provision of 100% EOU while storing goods. It is established on record that he is not concerned with any other aspect expect storage of goods receiving rent. Therefore with regard to serious offence of duty free imported goods removed by M/s Mayur Impex, the Appellant cannot be held responsible therefore penalty imposed upon him is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
