9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken place but Bills of Lading were fabricated and forged; however, examination reports were said to be given by the officers. Show Cause Notice dated 27.3.2002 was issued on culmination of investigation. Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order, dated 28.4.2011, imposing penalty of Rs. 35 Lakhs under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, on the Appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the appellant was neither served copy of the Show Cause Notice nor personal hearing intimation; the impugned order has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice or fair play in Adjudication Proceedings; the impugned Order-in- Original records about personal hearing given to various Noticees and also the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying on the finding of the Adjudicating Authority on others like S/Shri B.S. Chauhan, M.I. Qureshi and Manohar Badheka, proceedings against the Appellant should have been discharged; department had filed an Appeal against the proceedings dropped by the Adjudicating Authority against the above; Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to uphold the finding of the Adjudicating Authority; moreover, none of the statements from various persons were recorded including the Customs Officers, imputed any knowledge about the alleged illegal activities by the Appellant; even on law of parity, the impugned order deserves to quashed and/or set aside in the interest of justice. 3. Learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Department reiterat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conspired with Shri G. S. Kohli in fraudulent drawback availment. It is seen that learned Commissioner has relied upon the statements of Shri G. S. Kohli and Shri Jagmohan Basant Singh Kohli. Therefore, we find that the submissions of the appellant that his case is similar to that of other noticees against whom proceedings were dropped by the Commissioner, are factually incorrect. However, we find that his role is limited to the allegation of being a front for operating the current account of M/s. G.S.K. Exports in Bombay Cooperative Mercantile Bank; two pay-in slips bear the signature of the appellant. To this extent, the appellant has abetted the crime of M/s. G.S.K. Exports. However, it is not clear from the show-cause notice or the Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
