TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rohibited goods - penalty set aside. Penalty on Shri. Pervez Irani, partner of CHA firm - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Eagle Impex vs. CC, Kandla [2017 (2) TMI 49 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that separate penalties on partners or authorised signatories are not warranted, when penalties have been imposed on the appellant partnership/proprietor firms - penalty on partner not warranted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/161,976/2012 - ORDER NO. A/ 86236-86237/2018 - Dated:- 26-4-2018 - Hon ble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Neerav Mainkar, Advocate for Appellant Ms. Trupti Chavan, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair These appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever none appeared on behalf of Shri Bernard Moris Gerald, Pune, whose appeal is also listed along with the appeals in this case, therefore the appeal No. C/551/09 is adjourned. Registry shall list this appeal in due course. 4. I take up the appeal of M/s. Daroowala brothers and Shri Pervez J Irani. Ld. Counsel submits that as per the statement of Shri Pervez J Irani, partner of M/s. Daroowala brothers and company, the nature of the wood was not known to the appellant and therefore under confusion he could not know that the goods is prohibited for exports. However he has filed shipping bills on the basis of documents provided by the exporter, therefore he has no malafide intentions to attempt the exports of prohibited goods therefore ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not aware about the technical characteristic of product, therefore it cannot be said that appellant have knowingly attempted to clear prohibited goods for export. It is also observed that in the statement of exporter, he has not implicated the appellant regarding mis-declaration of the goods. The appellant also in their statement clearly stated that they were not knowing about the goods being prohibited. In this facts, I find that appellant being CHA having limited role for filing the shipping bill that too on basis of documents provided to them cannot be held guilty for attempting the export of prohibited goods, therefore in my considered view the appellants are not liable for penalty. Moreover, as regard the penalty on Shri. Pervez ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
