TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Customs Act are not attracted - no material produced by revenue on record to suggest the contrary - Tribunal is right in deleting the penalty - 345 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2009 - D. A. MEHTA and ABHILASHA KUMARI JJ. Mr. Y. N. Ravani for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ORDER JUSTICE D. A. MEHTA - Appellant-Revenue has proposed the following question: "Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aware of the provisions of law?" 3. The respondent is an employee of one M/s. Associate Plastic Rayon. Action was initiated against the Unit on the basis that certain goods which were found in a vehicle bearing No.GJ-5T-2998 were liable to be confiscated. The Adjudicating Authority passed a consolidated order dated 27-01-2005 against the Unit and certain employees, including the respondent-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Customs Act. However, even if one considers the amended question, it is apparent that provisions of Section 112(b) of the Act permit levy of penalty on a person who acquires possession or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing etc. any goods, which the person knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal has categorical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
