TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of a penalty of Rs.3.50 crores on the First Appellant under Section 114; (ii) A personal penalty of Rs. 2 crores on V.K.Agarwal, an active partner of the partnership firm and penalties in the like amount on two other partners, who were held to be major beneficiaries of fraudulent exports; and (iii) A penalty on two officers of Customs, namely, the Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent. 2. This appeal is by the firm and by its partner, V.K.Agarwal. 3. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Appellants to predeposit a sum of Rs.1 crore and Rs.25 lakhs under Section 129E of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g bills. The First Appellant was found to have also obtained benefit in respect of the previous consignments. 6. An application for waiver of predeposit was moved before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 29 April 2011 allowed the application in part and directed the First Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.1 crore within a period of four weeks. The Second Appellant was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. An order of waiver of deposit was passed as against the other two partners of the firm on the ground that they had not played an active role in the transaction. However, in so far as the Second Appellant is concerned, the Tribunal did not order of complete waiver. The Tribunal rejected the contention of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l has been produced before the Tribunal that ought to have been taken into consideration, particularly since an application for adducing additional documentary evidence has been allowed. 8. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Respondent by Counsel that each of these submissions, which arises in relation to the merits of the case, has been duly considered by the Tribunal and that no interference of this Court would be warranted and a substantial question of law would not arise. Counsel submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddhachalam was placed before the Tribunal in support of an order of remand and that has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 14. The Tribunal declined to order a remand a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be conducted only as a last resort. 10. The contention of the Appellants is that though the decision of the Supreme Court was relied upon and was cited in paragraph 4 while recording the submissions of the Appellants, it has not been dealt with in the reasons of the Tribunal. We are inclined, at the present stage, to accept the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Revenue that on a fair reading of the judgment of the Tribunal the decision of the Supreme Court has been considered. After adverting to the submission of the Appellants based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in paragraph 4, the Tribunal noted that Counsel for the Appellants had prayed for remand of the case before the Commissioner. The Tribunal furnishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts such as purchase invoices in support of the declared export value, nothing was produced, nor was any partner willing to cooperate with the investigating agency; (iv) Seventeen DEPB licences were cancelled ab initio on the ground that they had been obtained by the First Appellant by producing forged Bank realization certificates. Most of the BRCs were issued by the Central Bank of India. A Senior Officer of the Bank in his statement under Section 108 stated that the BRCs were forged and fake. The order of the licensing authority cancelling DEPB licences still holds the field. The Tribunal noted that though financial hardship had been pleaded, no evidence in regard to such hardship was forthcoming. 11. Having considered the rival....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....25 lakhs. In this regard, reliance was sought to be placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash Metal Works vs. Collector of C.Ex. Ahmedabad, 2007 (216) E.L.T. 660 (S.C.) by which the order of the Tribunal imposing the penalty both on the firm and its partners came to be upheld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not decide the question as to whether a penalty can be imposed on a partner of the firm when a penalty has already been imposed on the firm. The submission is that the firm is nothing but a compendious expression for its partners and the issue is not determined by the Supreme Court. In considering the totality of the facts of the case, the ....