9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cover heavy melting scrap; on examination of the impugned containers, imported by the above companies, it was noticed that R-22 cylinders were concealed behind the consignment of heavy melting scrap by creating a false partition. Investigations conducted revealed that the above cited two companies imported the said melting scrap shipped by M/s Aditi Global General Trading LLC. On conclusion of the investigations, a show cause notice dated 26.12.2014 was issued seeking to confiscate the seized R-22 cylinders, Nozzles & scrap used to conceal the same; impose penalty on Ramesh & Company; Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, Manager and Power of Attorney, M/s Ramesh & Company; Shri Vipan Kumar Garg, Proprietor, M/s Vipan & Company; Shri Bhavesh Thakkar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have accepted their role in the alleged illegal import and therefore Tribunal has imposed appropriate penalties on them. He submits that penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of statements of co-noticees as held in the following Mridul Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow 2018 (362) E.L.T. 847 (Tri. - All.) . The decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court [2019 (366) E.L.T. 634 (All.)] Saurabh Aggarwal vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2020 (373) E.L.T. 676 (Tri. - Del)] Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata vs. Amit Jalan [(2024) 23 Centax 266 (Tri. - Cal)] 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that the proceedings are vitiated as he was not provided an opp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Commissioner has properly appreciated the role of the appellant in the smuggling of R-22 gases and accordingly imposed suitable penalties. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the learned Commissioner has confirmed the role of the appellant in the impugned case of smuggling of R-22 gas and has imposed penalties on the grounds that the appellant along with Shri Bhavesh Thakkar was the mastermind and chief strategist; Shri Vipan Kumar Garg stated that the appellant came up with the offer of sale of R-22 gas during the meeting and that he was physically present when the impugned goods were loaded. 8. We find that the role of the appellant was confirmed on the basis of the allegations that he along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, denying the cross examination violates principles of natural justice, more so looking into the fact that the adjudicating authority has also not examined the said persons under the provisions of Rule 9D of Central Excise Act.
11. In view of the above, we find that Revenue has not made out any case for imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a)(i). Our point of view is supported by the various case law relied upon by the appellants. We further find that the appellant having not filed any declaration/form under the provisions of Customs Act cannot be fastened with the penalty under Section 114AA.
12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
( Pronounced in open court on 24. 04. 2025 ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
