TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed penalty on M/s. Cyber Express Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner, however, has not imposed penalty on other respondents, namely, Sh. G.D. Bhaiya and Sh. Sachin Bhaiya, both Directors in the respondent company and Sh. Gope Lakhaney, General Manager. 2. All the four appeals have been filed in terms of the Review Order No. 261-R-2001, dated 7-12-2001 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in exercise of the powers under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act. It is mentioned in the Review Order that the Board is of the view that the impugned order is not legally correct and proper inasmuch as Commissioner has refrained himself from imposing any penalty on Sh. G.D. Bhaiya, Sh. Sachin Bhaiya and Sh. Gope Lakhaney. In view of this, no pray....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning himself from imposing any penalty on these respondents that the exporter being an incorporated company, is protected by the corporate veil which cannot be lifted unless there is some specific proof to establish that the Directors or any employee had contravened the law for personal gains; that such finding is not legal and tenable, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of T.I. Stephen (AIR 1998 SC 994) that the company cannot act by itself and it has to act through someone; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Joginder Nath Mehra v. CC, Mumbai, 2000 (119) E.L.T. 102 (T) has held that the Directors, who play pre-dominant role in the scheme of creation of the corporate veil are liable for penal action under provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of master CD Roms at Rs. 20/- per piece and, therefore, export value of CD Roms at Rs. 750/- was declared knowingly and willingly with intent to avail higher DEPB credit fraudulently. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned S.D.R. and perused the records. We observe that the Commissioner has given a specific finding in the impugned order that reports received from UK & USA, contain ample evidence to establish requisite probability that the buyer and consignee could be fictitious and transaction being not genuine. The Commissioner has also given his finding that the evidence advanced by the Department and the respondents failed to explain the facts as to who was the buyer of the goods, being exported by them, lead to an in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould render the goods liable to confiscation under Sec. 113 of the Customs Act, shall be liable for penalty. The action by Sh. G.D. Bhaiya, in exporting the goods to the buyer, who did not have identifiable business and location and over pricing the export goods has rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Sec. 113 of the Customs Act. As a consequence of it, penalty is imposable on G.D. Bhaiya. The principle of corporate veil mentioned by the Commissioner in the impugned order is not applicable while imposing penalty on the persons whose acts or omissions rendered the goods liable for confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act. This was the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Santanu Ray (supra) where the Cou....