TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs penalty overturned due to lack of evidence; Appellant granted appeal with consequential relief</h1> <h3>RAKESH KUMAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI</h3> The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to lack of direct evidence implicating him in ... Penalty u/s 113 - Held that:- There is nothing in the statement of the appellant indicating that he was aware of wrong filing of shipping bills and fraudulently pecuniary benefits being made by the exporters. The appellant was admittedly working as an employee of the forwarding units and under the directions of his employer. Lower authority have relying upon the statement of Sh. Rakesh Dhamir - there is no direct evidence reflecting upon the knowledge of the appellant, by extending of the benefit of any doubt - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Imposition of penalty under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The appellant, who was an employee at a forwarding company, was involved in customs clearance work for a consignment declared as Sanitary Hardware but was actually non-Basmati Rice. Investigations revealed discrepancies, leading to penalties imposed on various individuals, including a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, prompting the present appeal before the Tribunal.Upon review, the Tribunal considered the appellant's role and knowledge in the fraudulent activity. The appellant's statement did not indicate awareness of the incorrect filing of shipping bills or the fraudulent actions of the exporters. The appellant was acting under the directions of the employer, and there was no direct evidence proving his involvement. The lower authorities relied on the statement of another individual, which the appellant argued was not sufficient evidence as per legal principles.Ultimately, the Tribunal found that there was no direct evidence implicating the appellant in the fraudulent scheme. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant due to the lack of conclusive proof of his knowledge or involvement, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on him and allowed his appeal with consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 31-7-2013.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
