9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise officers conducted certain enquiry and verification with regard to the activities of the said 100% EOU. On completion of enquiry, proceedings were initiated against the unit and various other persons for loss of customs duty due to violation of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and also proposing penalties on various persons. The case against the EOU is that they have not undertaken any manufacture as mandated in the permission nor they have followed the procedure for getting the goods manufactured from the job workers. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The original authority held that the main noticee (M/s. Hi-Bright Apparels India Pvt. Ltd.) have violated various provisions of Customs Act resulting in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor of the main noticee and authorized all operations for dispatching the imported fabrics for job work etc. He further submitted that the appellant had another unit in Coimbatore in which the duty-free imported materials meant for Chennai unit have been diverted and misused. Considering the facts as revealed in the investigation, there is no case for waiver of penalty or reduction of the same. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The role of the appellant for the violation of various provisions of Customs Act, 1962 connected to duty-free import of items for the EOU cannot be contested with any force. The original authority examined the depositions made by the appellant during investigation as corroborated by various ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 31.3.2003. Therefore, he is liable for penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962" 7. In the present appeal there is no substantial ground to reverse the finding of the original authority. The appellant cannot shift the blame to the carelessness of the employees for the violation of Customs Act. Accordingly, we find that the liability for penalty under section 112(A) cannot be contested. However, considering the fact that there was no appeal or observation on merits of the case, because of the dismissal of the appeal by the main noticee for default of payment of predeposit, the overall merits and the quantification of duty loss was not subject matter of detail examination, on such appeal by this Tribunal. The present appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
