TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....112 of the Customs Act, 1962? 2. As these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) and as similar contentions and issues have been raised, these appeals are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The appellants herein had filed appeals before the tribunal, impugning orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated 18.11.2005 imposing penalty of Rs.20 lacs and Rs.5 lacs on Rakesh Arora and Ashok Kumar Jha, respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the impugned order, reasoning and the discussion therein. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: " 4. Heard both sides....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by a Magisterial Court. Oral evidence of Shri Ajay Uppal showed that for a small consideration of Rs.6000/- P.M., he was used as benamidar for the Appellant. That remained uncontroverted. Shri Ajay Uppal also proved the concealed goods. 6. When the Authorities further proceeded to examine how the transactions were dealt. Authorities also found that a bank account in the name of above concern was opened at the instance of Shri Rakesh Arora consequent upon introduction by Shri Ajay Kartik for opening such account in the Corporation Bank at Noida. This clearly proved that had Shri Rakesh Arora not been concerned or connected with M/s.A.U. internation, he would not have opened the Bank Account. All these evidence establish that Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cogent evidence to rule out his active involvement with the entire chain deceitful import. Having no alternative to appreciate innocence of Shri Ajay Kumar Jha, penalty of Rs.5.00 lakhs imposed by Authority below, on him is also confirmed. 9. In the result, both Appeals are dismissed. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)" 5. It is apparent from the aforesaid paragraphs that the tribunal has not specifically referred to the contentions of the appellant and rejected the same after making reference to evidence, statements and material on record but general observations and findings have been recorded. These findings are inferences but do not refer to the primary material or evidence on the basis of which findings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corroborative material. There is no reference to the contentions raised by Rakesh Arora on the said aspect. Reference is not made to the stand of Rakesh Arora, the same is not dealt with and rejected. 6. Similarly, with regard to Ashok Kumar Jha, it has been held that he had "conscious" knowledge about the activities but no evidence or material has been discussed to state as to on what basis the said inference has been drawn. It has been recorded that his oral evidence was against him and proves his nexus to the offence. However, the said oral evidence has not been discussed and quoted in the impugned order. 7. The tribunal, being the first appellate authority and the final fact finding authority, is required to deal wit....