2009 (8) TMI 1036

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Both the orders are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad imposing penalties of Rs. 1 crore on Shri Kamal Adnani and Rs. 60 lakhs on Shri Pankaj Lakhani in terms of Provision of Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. As per facts on record ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Sameer Chitkara learned SDR, appearing for the Revenue, we find that Shri Kamal Adnani is son of the owner of M/s. Lotus Trading Company, Dubai who had supplied the raw material to M/s. Deep Enterprises. On going through the relevant paragraphs (40.3 & 40.7) of the impugned order passed by Commissioner, we find that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty on Shri Kamal Adnani on the ground ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on cash basis. He has admitted to have visited Mumbai to clear the documents relating to the imports. He has failed to counter charge the allegations by any concrete evidence. 4. As against above, the said appellant has submitted that merely because he had visited Mumbai to clear the documents relating to import does not suggest that he was associated with M/s. Deep Enterprises in clearance of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld have woken up to inquire whether everything was alright but he has failed to do so. Penalty cannot be imposed upon the above grounds and reasons. 6. We agree with the contention of the learned advocates appearing for the appellants. There is virtually no evidence on record showing any involvement of the present appellants in domestic diversion of the imported goods by M/s. Deep Enterprises. ....