9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jewel had been conducting business of producing such jewellery for export and gold required by them is also allowed to be procured duty free in accordance with the provisions of SEZ Act and Rules made there under. M/s D Jewel had procured duty free 66 gold Bars weighing 8069.63 Grams valued at Rs. 2,34,03,754/- for using in production of ornaments. The DRI Officer intercepted Sh. Chetan D Trambadia riding a bike near gate of Surat SEZ and found him carrying 66 gold bars totally weighing 8069.63 grams, which was being taken to M/s Choksi Vachhraj Makanji (CVM) in exchange of ornaments and jewellery brought from them by the SEZ Unit. Certain gems and stones were also recovered from him in polythene zipper bag. The 22 carat gold bars (weighing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as Shri Dipak Dholakia (Partner in both the firms), Sh. Chetan D. Trambadia (Administrative head of the M/s D. Jewel) and Sh. Kantibhai J Jadav (Employee of M/s CVM). The said SCN was adjudicated by the Commissioner 0f Customs, Surat, whereby all the gold bars and diamonds/ precious stones/ moti totally valued at Rs. 2,70,12,710/- were confiscated with an option of redemption fine of Rs. 1,35,06,355/- and also ordering for confiscation of gold jewellery valued at Rs. 3,20,96,437/-with an option to pay redemption fine of Rs. 1,60,48,219/-. The penalties were imposed on all the appellants under the Customs Act. Motor cycle that Sh. Chetan Trambadia was riding has also been confiscated with an option to pay redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EZ for job work and fully produced goods were also allowed to be brought in the SEZ Unit by following the procedure, therefore, the transaction is allowed under the law, but due to urgency, the appellant have not followed the procedure as set out in the Rules. Since appellant were in urgency of export of goods, which has been explained by various persons whose statements were recorded, there were only technical and procedural infections but there were no malafide intention. As regard the appeals filed by the partners of M/s D. Jewel and M/s Choksi Vachhraj Makanji, he submits that the goods in question is not prohibited goods as there is no prohibition nor any restriction in delivering any goods including the studded gold jewellery from any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the confiscation of goods is not correct. He further submits that multiple penalties were imposed under section 112(a) and Section 114 (iii) of Customs Act. He submits that in respect of D. Jewel, Shri Dipak Dholokia, Shri Chetan D. Trambadia and Shri Kantibhai J. Jadav were punished more than once for the same offence which is not legally permissible under the law. 3. As regard the penalty imposed on the employees Shri Kantibhai J. Jadav of Choksi Vachhraj Makanji and Shri Chetan D. Trambadia of M/s D. Jewel, he submits that these appellants have worked as employees, therefore, no personal penalty on the employees could have been imposed when he has worked under employer only in his official capacity without any personal gain and input. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted to be imported in SEZ only for manufacture of gold jewellery, therefore, removal of gold as such made the said goods as prohibited goods; hence the same is liable for absolute confiscation. As regard, the penalties imposed on partners, he submits that simultaneous penalty can be imposed on the partnership firm as well as partners. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Sheikh Mohd Omer Vs. CC, Calcutta 1983 (13) ELT 1439 (SC) Om Praksh Bhatia Vs. CC, Delhi 2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC) Zainuddin Vs. CCE Hyderabad-II 2015 (330) ELT 697 (Tri.Bang) CC (AIR), Chennai-I Vs. P. Sinnasamy 2016 (344) ELT 1154 (Mad) Amritalakshmi Machines Works Vs. CC, Mumbai 2016 (335) ELT 225 (Bom) N Chittaranjan Vs. CCE, Bibikulam, Madurai2017-TIOL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the quantity of gold cleared to Choksi Vachhraj Makanji was adjusted by bringing gold jewellery in their SEZ Unit. We are of the view that in respect of any conclusion made by D. Jewel and Choksi Vachhraj Makanji, the facts is not disputed that both the transaction are illegal in the law, hence there is clear violation of provision of SEZ Act, RBI guideline and Customs Act. In these undisputed facts, the appellant could not get any relief only by mentioning the commercial reason, if the excuses given by the appellant is accepted it would lead the situation whereby giving any excuse whole scheme of SEZ can be planted. 6. As regard the penalty imposed on the partner of partnership firm, we find that there are contrary judgments c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
