TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Tribunal was dismissed by the Tribunal on non-deposition. This Court restored the appeal confining the matter to only penalty part. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise by his order dated 27.9.2016, however, imposed the penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs. The Tribunal by his order dated 7.9.2017, however, reduced the same to ₹ 1 lakh. Appeal dismissed. - D.B. Custom Appeal No. 107/2018 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2018 - Mr. Mohammad Rafiq And Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar JJ. For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Archana on behalf of Ms. Mahi Yadav' For the Respondent(s) : None JUDGMENT (PER HON BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.) This appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the belief that the same were smuggled with the intent to evade payment of Customs duty and hence liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. During the course of investigation, it was transpired that appellant-Mohsin Khan was also friend of smuggler master mind Praveen Jain, who has admitted that the smuggling of 8 kg gold was done from Muscut to Jaipur International Aiarport with a lot of 2 kg each. In his statement, he has also accepted that appellant Mohsin Khan was also associated with his in his clandestine activities of smuggling. The department imposed a penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs on him. In the statements recorded on 21/22.2.2013 under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d writ petition before this Court, which by order dated 28.3.2016 quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the matter back to the Commissioner confining to the component of penalty imposed against the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) against decided the appeal on 27.9.2016 and upheld the penatly of ₹ 2,00,000. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, which by order dated 27.9.2016 reduced the penalty to ₹ 1,00,000. Hence this petition. Ms. Archana, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant was a student and had gone to Dubai on four occasions for exploring job opportunities because he wanted to help is father. His father-in-law was working there. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
