TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 - the liability for penalty u/s 112(a) cannot be contested - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/25/2011 - 42927/2017 - Dated:- 15-11-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Somasundaram, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against the order dated 31.12.2008 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - III. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Hi-Bright Apparels India Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o day activities of the unit. It is managed mainly by Shri Arunachalam at that time. Further, he also submitted that the quantification of duty loss itself was wrong as the concessional rate of duty available under Notification No.14/2005-Cus. dated 1.3.2005 was not extended to them. Viewed with such concession in the rate, the duty liability will come down to almost 40%. Considering that the main noticee could not contest the merits of the case before the Tribunal, in view of dismissal of their appeal due to failure to predeposit, the present appeal is handicapped in elaborating and getting the benefit on the merits of the case. He pleaded for waiver of penalty or in the alternative reduced quantum of penalty. 4. The ld. AR objected to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or job work purpose was obtained in respect of only three job workers out of which one was not inexistence and incase of fifteen other units (not 100% EOU) for which no permission was taken as already discussed supra. His contention that he was not aware of rules and regulation in respect of 100% EOU and it happened due to carelessness of his employees cannot absolve him from his role. Shri Benjamin did not file any reply to the show cause notice and also to the intimations sent to him to attend personal hearing on 14.10.2008, 30.10.2008, 18.11.2008 were returned undelivered. This shows that he has nothing to say in the matter. From above it is clear that he has knowingly concerned himself in improper removal and diversion of warehouse good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
