Customs Act appeal dismissed, penalty upheld for revenue loss despite lack of personal involvement.

The appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 was dismissed by the tribunal, upholding the penalty of 3.00 lakhs imposed on the appellant for actions resulting in revenue loss, despite the appellant's claim of lack of personal involvement in the transaction conducted by his father-in-law. The court found no substantial legal question arising from the factual findings and advised the appellant to file a separate application before the tribunal to contest the grounds on merits. The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the lack of reflection of the appellant's contentions in the impugned order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves an appeal u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Factual Findings:
The appellant contended that he was not personally involved in the transaction, which was undertaken by his father-in-law, Sita Ram Aggarwal. However, the tribunal rejected this contention, stating that even if the appellant acted in good faith towards his father-in-law, his actions resulted in defrauding revenue. The penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed sustainable under the law, considering the revenue loss incurred. The tribunal found the penalty of &8377; 3.00 lakhs reasonable and declined to interfere with it.

Legal Analysis:
The tribunal's findings were considered factual and not requiring interference. It was noted that no substantial question of law arose from the factual findings. The appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant had contested the original order on merits, not solely on the ground of lack of personal involvement. However, the impugned order did not reflect this. The court declined to examine the contentions raised by the appellant's counsel on merits at that stage. The appellant was advised to file an appropriate application before the tribunal if he wished to press the grounds on merits, which would be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with no costs, based on the observation that the appellant's contentions regarding the order in original were not adequately reflected in the impugned order.

---