2011 (10) TMI 322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent is an employee/ authorized signatory of M/s. Spectrum Fabrics (100%EOU). Officers of the Preventive Section visited the firm's premises and noticed shortages of goods which were imported to the tune of 5200 Kgs. Statement of the authorized signatory was recorded wherein he has admitted diversion of the said goods to local market without discharge of duty liability.  In the statement it was also stated that they are ready to discharge the customs duty and interest thereon and it was done so.  Proceedings initiated by the show cause notice were confirmed by the adjudicating authority against the firm by confirmation of demand of customs duty and confiscation of goods. Since the goods were not available for confiscation, redemp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Jusub Memon, authorised signatory of the unit under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 despite having confirmed the duty demands on account of unaccounted raw material, and its illicit diversion. (c) The Commissioner (Appeals) has committed a substantial error of law in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Iqbal Jusub Memon, authorised signatory of the unit despite having found that the authorised signatory of the unit was knowingly concerned with the act of transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with the goods which he knew or had reasons to believe that the same were liable for confiscation under the provision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty on the authorised signatory of the unit, more particularly when in the statement of the authorised signatory recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 & Section 108 of the Customs Act, there was a clear admission as regards illicit removal also which were never retracted. (g) The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate, consider and notice that the assessee and its partner have chosen not to account for the raw material, which in turn warrants imposition of penalty which view has been upheld by the following decisions:- 2008 (222) ELT 0408 (Tri. Bom) 2007 (214) ELT 0023 (Tri. Bom) 2007 (214) ELT 0386 (Tri. Bom) 2007 (222) ELT 0019 (Tri. LB) 2007 (214) ELT 0017 (All) 2006 (204) ELT 0046 (Tri. Del....