TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provision of Customs Act. 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. Penalty on partners - Held that:- High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE, Vs. Jai Prakash Motwani (Supra) categorically held that when the penalty on partnership firm is imposed no separate penalty should be imposed on the partner as a partnership firm is consist of partners - separate penalty on the partner should not be imposed. Penalty on employees - Held that:- They are mere employees working under the direction of their employer firm - penalty not justified. Appeal allowed in part. - C/10113-10118, 10200/2018-DB - A/12148-12154/2018 - Dated:- 11-10-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri P M Dave (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri L. Patra (AR) ORDER PER: RAMESH NAIR The appellant M/s D Jewel is an SEZ Unit engaged in manufacture of Gold Studded Jewellery, Diamonds Studded stones / Silver Jewellery and Platinum Studded Jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 2,70,12,710/- were confiscated with an option of redemption fine of ₹ 1,35,06,355/- and also ordering for confiscation of gold jewellery valued at ₹ 3,20,96,437/-with an option to pay redemption fine of ₹ 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 ₹ 10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order in Original, all the appellants filed the present appeals. The Revenue also filed the appeal No. C/10200/2018-DB seeking absolute confiscation of seized gold jewellery. 2. Sh. P.M. Dave Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee submits that M/s D. Jewel had received orders from 3 UAE based dealers namely, M/s Malabar Gold and Diamonds, M/s Pure Gold and Jewellers LLC and M/s Damas Jewellery for a variety of ornaments, including some typical designs for being supplied before the end of first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure, therefore, the studded gold ornaments were not liable for confiscation under Section 113 (d) of Customs Act. He further submits that as regard the confiscation of gold bars as well as diamonds/ precious stones/moti under Section 111 of (d), (e), (j) and (o) of the Customs Act is also illegal because these provisions are not attracted nor violated in the present case, therefore, goods should not have been confiscated under the above clause of section 111 of Customs Act. He also submits that there is no dispute about the facts that whatever gold was attempted to remove from D. Jewel to Choksi Vachhraj Makanji almost in equal quantity the gold studded jewellery were taken in exchange from Choksi Vachhraj Makanji, therefore, there is no overall impact of any revenue, for this reason also 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 imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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-229-HC-MAD-CX Prakash Metal Works Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2007 (216) ELT 660 (SC) CCE, Surat-I Vs. Rajnikant Ratilal Kadiwala 2009 (245) ELT 379 (Tri. Ahmd) As regard the Revenue s appeal seeking absolute confiscation, the submission made hereinabove may be taken on record and he also reiterates the grounds of Revenue s appeal. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records, we find that in the present case there is no dispute about illicit transaction of gold bars as well as gold jewellery between M/s D. Jewel and M/s Choksi Vachhraj Makanji that the gold bars imported by M/s D. Jewel in their SEZ Unit were removed without any documentation and without following the procedure. The SEZ is area which is considered as foreign territory for all the purpose of taxation, duties etc. therefore, the goods cannot remove into and out side SEZ freely. The goods imported by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
