Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri R. Yellaiah Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore

2017 (11) TMI 51 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - abetting smuggling - Held that: - the imposition of penalty on the appellant under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable in law, as the same has been passed without any clinching evidence against the appellant showing his involvement in abetment of clearance of imported parcels without payment of customs duty. - If when disciplinary proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are dropped, then the imposition of penalty u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- each on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the allegation of abetting smuggling. 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical and the evidence is also the same, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of appeal No.C/430/2009 are taken. 3.1 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Bangalore received information that four .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s and while he was placing the four parcels into a car. 3.2 The person informed that his name is Shri Mohammed Riyazudeen and he confirmed that he has received the four parcels from Frazer Town Post Office. He further informed that he has received the parcels on behalf of M/s Acuta Spectra Inc. and showed the parcels to the offices. On the query of officers as whether he was in possession of any documents relating to the said parcels, he stated that he was instructed by one Shri Abdul Khader to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n delivery of the same. 3.3 Shri Mohammed Riyazudeen also introduced Shri Putta Ramu and informed that he was the driver of the car being Registration No.KA 02 C 7591 which was arranged by the said Abdul Khader for transportation. Shri Mohammed Riyazudeen also informed that Shri Abdul Khader is residing at 201, 12th Main, 1st Block, Manjunatha Nagar, Bangalore 10 at the ground floor and he (Mohammed Riyazudeen) is residing at the first floor in the same premises and that Shri Abdul Kader belonge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd after following the due process of law, the Commissioner vide the impugned order confiscated all the parcels and also imposed penalties on various persons including the appellant on whom penalty of ₹ 1 lakh in each case has been imposed under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sition of penalty cannot be sustained. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on Mangali Implex Ltd. Vs. UOI: 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.). He further submitted that the CBI Court vide its order dated 31.10.2011 acquitted the appellant from the alleged charges levelled against him in respect of parallel proceedings initiated under the provisions of Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and therefore, he submitted that the question of imposing penalty for abetment under Section 112(a) of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cisions: Commissioner vs. Parminder Jit Singh: 2013 (293) ELT 241 (Tri.) Suraj Prakash vs. CC, New Delhi: 2016 (333) ELT 366 (Tri.-Del.) 6.1 He also submitted that there was no proposal in the show-cause notice either for classification of the imported parcels or for demanding of duty or for denying the exemption under any of the Notifications. Hence, the allegation of the Department with regard to alleged loss of revenue and other allegations with regard to abetment does not hold any water. 6.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the imported parcels and documents and are supposed to produce the imported parcels along with documents for examination. Further, the investigating authority has not initiated any action on the person (Riyazudden and the Driver of the vehicle) who were in possession of the disputed parcels. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner vide the impugned order has given detailed reasoning considering each and every piece .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version