TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned SDR. 2. It is submitted in the memorandum of appeal that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate the appellant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act that he had not made any exports in the name of M/s. Neetu Fashions or others. It is submitted that he did not have any business relationship with M/s. Neetu Fashions or others. It is submitted that all the allegations in the show-cause notice were denied, but the learned Commissioner proceeded to record adverse findings. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner failed to establish any act or omission of the appellant, which rendered the export goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act. The goods were exported by M/s. Neetu Fashions and M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scation of the goods. It is claimed that the allegations in the show-cause notice very much constitute an offence covered by Section 113(i). According to the learned SDR, the appellant as a person who was found to have associated himself with the encashment of drawback cheques was certainly liable to be penalized under Section 114 of the Act. In this context, he has produced a copy of the relevant show-cause notice, which was not filed by the appellant. 4. After considering grounds of this appeal and the submissions of the learned SDR, we find that the amounts of drawback granted earlier to M/s. Neetu Fashions and M/s. Vecario International were ordered for recovery under Rule 16(A) of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also liable to penalty. Shri Rajinder Kumar Gupta, and Shri Virendra Kumar Pathak deliberately played role in the exportation of goods liable to confiscation. Therefore they are also liable penalty". The learned Commissioner found that M/s. Neetu Fashions and M/s. Vecario International, in whose names the goods were exported under claim for drawback, never existed at the addresses declared by them in the relevant shipping bills. He found "incorrect declaration of address" by the said firms. He found that they deliberately misdeclared their addresses thereby attracting the provisions of Section 113(ii) of the Act, even though this provision was not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice. On this basis, the goods were found to be l....