2010 (1) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d has been imposed on the appellant and in addition, penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was also imposed. Further, penalties of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 3,334/- have also been imposed on the appellant under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. Learned advocate submits that appeal relating to penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 has been filed after 46 days from the due date. This happened because of appellant filed appeal in EA3 form and on objection raised by the registry to file appeal in proper format the delay has been occurred. We find that reasons for delay are acceptable and accordingly, we condone the delay of 46 days in respect of penalty under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. 3. L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and he got his share. He does not agree that because the appellant had paid some portion of the amount to others, the demand for rebate should not be made from him. He also justifies the penalties imposed upon him in view of the fraudulent activities undertaken by him along with others. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the case against the appellant is built on the basis of his own statement and statement of others who joined him in making fraudulent exports and fraudulent claim for rebate. Even though the main appellant is not before us, it is not the submission of the learned advocate that rebate was admissible, it was based on proper exports having been made. His submission is that he was not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at he has remedies to recover the same from them after paying the amount to the department. In view of the above position, we do not find that appellant has been able to make out even a prima facie case in his favour. We have enquired about the financial position if any pleaded in the application. Learned advocate fairly admitted that such claim has not been made. However, he admitted that appellant is no longer doing any business and has no financial resources to pay pre-deposit. Further he also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Overseas v. CCE, Thane - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 844 (Tri.- Mumbai) in support of his contention that the appellant need not make any pre-deposit. We find that in the absence of any financia....