2009 (2) TMI 591

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uing them. The DEPB benefits had been availed fraudulently. The DRI investigated the case. It was revealed that in 2003, the firm exported Paints, which were of low quality. 4. The applicant is a Chartered Accountant. As per the investigation, he certified the cost of production of synthetic enamel paints of the M/s. SSP at Rs. 2264.62 and Rs. 2265/- per litre. The Certificate dated 4-2-2004 shows the Present Market Value of the synthetic enamel paint as between Rs. 2300/- to Rs. 2350/-. He gave a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. in his statement he stated that "he has gone through the Certificates dated 3-12-2003 and 4-2-2004 issued by M/s. ASRV Prasad & Co. to M/s. SSP certifying the cost of production as Rs. 2264.42 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the said Certificates had been issued only at the request of Shri Prasad and on the basis of his dictation." Proceedings were initiated against him. The learned Adjudicating Authority gave the following findings :- "Shri ASRV Prasad, Chartered Accountant appeared for the Personal Hearing on 11-5-2007 and pleaded innocence of the misuse of his Certificates by the 2 firms and by the person who procured from them (namely Shri JSSV Prasad). He had submitted elaborate arguments in his written replies dated 24-4-2006. But, I am unable to accept his plea that he issued the said Certificates out of friendship and bona fide belief of Shri Prasad. Being a professional, he is well aware of his acts, their consequences, etc. His arguments in the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt, it was urged that the order is beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. The penalty imposed is under Section 112 as against the proposal in the Show Cause Notice to impose penalty under Section 114. The following case-laws were relied on :- (i)      Vikram Jain v. CC, Bangalore - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 735 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii)    Mercantile India v. CC, Chennai - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 540 (Tri.-Chennai). It was submitted that penalty under Section 112 is imposable only for improper importation of goods. In the present case, the issue is for inflating the value of the goods, which are exported. Penalty under Section 114 is imposable only when the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 113. Penalt....