9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consultancy. On the basis of investigation conducted by the DRI, a show-cause notice dt. 30/03/2009 was issued to the appellant along with others and the allegation against the appellant in the said show-cause notice was that the appellant was responsible in procurement of goods, guided Shri HR Ravichandra, Partner of Gardenia in procuring goods through Maxx Access Ltd., China and was fully aware of the facts of availability of two sets of invoice showing different prices/values, payment of differential value of the imported goods being made through other than Banking Channel and also availability of the account statements showing the actual transaction details, in respect of the imports of the said goods. Further it was alleged that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2.1. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the evidence on record. He further submitted that the main charge against the appellant is that he has guided M/s. Gardenia Comforts in undervaluation of furniture imported from China and therefore the appellant has abetted and aided in undervaluation of imported goods. He further submitted that the appellant has not been engaged by the Gardenia Comforts as consultant and he has no role in impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that once the importer settled the matter and the Settlement Commission has allowed the settlement vide its Final Order dt. 06/01/2010, then the case is said to be settled in totality i.e. in respect of all other parties in the said case. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. N.S. Mahesh Vs. CC, Cochin [2018(363) ELT 644 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. S.K. Coombowala Vs. CC(Import), Mumbai [2007(220) ELT 492 (Tri. Mumbai)] iii. Virender Bansal Vs. CC(ICD), New Delhi [2015(317) ELT 796 (Tri. Del.)] He also referred to Section 28(6) of the Customs Act to buttress his argument that once the main case is settled, all the cases of conoticees get settled. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dervaluation of the imported goods. Commissioner has wrongly observed in the impugned order that the appellant has admitted that he has helped the importer Gardenia Comforts in undervaluation of the furniture. Commissioner has misread the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion on the basis of the involvement of the appellant in other cases wherein the appellant has confessed his guilty and has also approached the Settlement Commission along with other importers and paid the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Settlement Commission . but as far as, this case is concerned, there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant has helped the importer in undervaluation of the furniture imported by them. Therefore I hold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
