Personal penalties overturned due to lack of evidence

The Tribunal set aside the personal penalties imposed on M/s. Pet Plastic Ltd. and Shri Ritesh Vakil due to insufficient evidence of their direct involvement or knowledge in the diversion of goods. The penalties were overturned based on the lack of proof establishing their culpability, in line with previous decisions in similar cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of personal penalty on M/s. Pet Plastic Ltd. under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of personal penalty on Shri Ritesh Vakil, authorized signatory of M/s. G.K. Warehousing.

Analysis:

1. Imposition of personal penalty on M/s. Pet Plastic Ltd.:
The appeals by Shri Vijay Vakil and Shri Ritesh Vakil, Chairman of a company and authorized signatory of a warehouse respectively, were against impugned orders passed by the Commissioner imposing personal penalties on M/s. Pet Plastic Ltd. under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegation was that Pet Plastic had placed orders with another company for the supply of plastic articles for export, but the raw materials were diverted to the open market. The Tribunal had previously set aside penalties imposed on M/s. Pet Plastics in a related matter. The Tribunal agreed with the contention that since penalties on M/s. Pet Plastics were set aside for the same grounds, the penalty on its Chairman, Shri Vijay Vakil, should also be set aside. Therefore, the appeals by Shri Vijay Vakil were allowed.

2. Imposition of personal penalty on Shri Ritesh Vakil:
The personal penalty on Shri Ritesh Vakil was imposed because he had signed on a bogus challan indicating receipt of consignments in the warehouse, which were later sold illegally. Shri Ritesh Vakil claimed that he was only an authorized signatory and had signed on instructions without knowledge of the actual purpose. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence showing that Shri Ritesh Vakil was aware of the goods' diversion. The Commissioner did not establish personal knowledge attributing to Shri Ritesh Vakil. The Tribunal found no justifiable reason to uphold the penalties against Shri Ritesh Vakil, especially when penalties for similar circumstances were set aside for other appellants in a previous order. Consequently, all appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the personal penalties imposed on both M/s. Pet Plastic Ltd. and Shri Ritesh Vakil based on the lack of evidence establishing their direct involvement or knowledge in the diversion of goods, aligning with previous decisions and findings in related cases.

---