2010 (9) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anish Mohan, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant along with other co-noticees, who are penalized in the present proceedings, entered into a conspi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Videocon International Ltd. v. CC, (Imports), Mumbai as reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T. 553 and Orient Enterprises v. CC, Cochin, reported in 1986 (23) E.L.T. 507. 3. The contention of the revenue is that the during the investigation numerous summons were issued to the appellants but have not appeared before the investigating authority. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258. 4. We find that the statement of co-noticees recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are in details whereby it is admitted that the appellant along with co-notices submitted forge documents to obtain DEPB licence. The statements are admissible in evidence as per the decision and Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the revenue. The conduct of ....