9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was an intelligence input that the first appellant who has issued with DFRC license for the import of cotton fabrics were forged and polyester fabrics was imported. During investigation, they appear to have found that in license No. 0310352803 dated 20.10.2005 issued to M/s. GEE, Mumbai, (1st appellant) SQM was transferred to the name of M/S.Gaunir Impex by M/S Chawhan Overseas. It appears that the above DFRC license was given by GEE - 1st appellant herein before us - for getting the licenses, as per which the export item was cotton printed fabrics only and the import item was cartoon processed fabrics of GSM 92+/ -10%. 2. In response to the summons issued to the 1st appellant, it appears that the manager of the 1st appellant submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the SCN thereby imposing penalty of Rs.1,00,00 under section 112(a) ibid. It is against this order that the present appeals have been filed before us. 5. Heard Shri R.V. Shetty and Shri S.R. Shetty, Advocates for the appellants and Smt. O.M. Reena, learned Additional Commissioner for the Respondent-department. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is, "whether the commissioner was justified in imposing the penalty under section 112(a) ibid on the appellants"? 7. Undisputed facts that emerge from the perusal of the order in original are that M/S.GEE who had exported cotton printed fabrics and obtained DFRC in question for the import of cotton processed fabrics, had sold the said license to M/S Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions, as under: "2. There is no finding by the authority as to the existence of above element being present in the case. Record also does not reveal whether the appellant was instrumental to make any changes to the annexure to the DFC scrips. Department has not made any enquiry with the DGFT while the license holder submitted the scrips for the purpose of clearance of the imports discharging the duty liability through scrips. The Public Notice No. 47/2003 dated 11.6.2003 although issued very clear guidelines that the license holder should present the license for registration at the time of import, the department did not find out whether the appellant deliberately acted to cause any injury to Revenue. In absence any adverse finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
