TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter heading 6001. HELD THAT:- While making these imports the appellant would not have gained any monetary benefit as no duty is involved. We also find that appellant have not contested confiscation of the goods and abandoned the goods. In these circumstances, penalty of ₹ 3 Lakh imposed on M/s. Awin Exim Company under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is excessive and the same is reduced to ₹ 1,50,000/-. Penalty is imposed on the M/s. Awin Exim Company - penalty has also been imposed on its partner Shri Satish Choudhary - HELD THAT:- When penalty is imposed on partnership firm, penalty cannot be imposed on its partner - penalty imposed on Shri Satish Choudhary is set-aside. It is noticed that penalty of ₹ 2 La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der CTH 54075400 and CTH 96081000 respectively. The appellant had also filed KASEZ Bill of Entry No. 4714 dated 16.02.2004 classifying the said goods under CTH 54071016. On 25 May 2004, the officers of SIIB of Custom House, Kandla visited the factory premises and drew some samples of fabric under Panchnama. The said samples were sent to Customs Laboratory for testing and out of 10 samples, 7 samples were found dyed, knitted fabrics made wholly of Polyester filament yarn whereas other three samples were found to be woven fabrics . On the strength of the above test report, it was alleged that appellant had imported dyed knitted fabrics made wholly of polyester filament yarn falling under Chapter heading 6001 of the Customs Tariff Act along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en any intention to evade any duty. In these circumstances, the penalty imposed on the appellant M/s. Awin Exim Company, Shri Satish Choudhary and Shri Subhash Choudhary should be set-aside. 4. Learned Counsel further pointed out that since penalty has been imposed on M/s. Awin Exim Company, no penalty on its partner can be imposed in view of the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jai Prakash Motwani 2010 (258) ELT 204 (Guj.) 5. Learned Authorised Representative relied on the impugned order. He argued that there was a gap between the date of import and initiation of investigation. He argued that since the appellant had noticed some knitted fabrics along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen penalty is imposed on partnership firm, penalty cannot be imposed on its partner. In view of this, penalty imposed on Shri Satish Choudhary is set-aside. 8. It is noticed that penalty of ₹ 2 Lakh has been imposed on Shri Subhash Choudhary, Power of Attorney holder under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Subhash Choudhary has not appeared to answer the summons and his role is relatively limited and keeping in view the fact that Shri Subhash Choudhary would not have gained any monetary benefits, the penalty of ₹ 2 Lakh is excessive and the same is reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). 9. As discussed above, the appeal of Shri Satish Choudhary, partner is allowed. Appeals of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
