TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant after the adjudication order vide Order-in-Original no.60/2007 dated 14.12.2007 wherein a penalty of Rs.20 lakhs on the appellant and Rs.20 lakhs on the director of the appellant company was imposed for an allegation that the appellant and its director were actively involved in fraud from fabrication of High Sea Sales and delivery of goods at different warehouses/godown situated around Kalamboli instead of the addresses of the manufacturer/supporting manufacturer as declared in the advance licences. It has been reported by Central Intelligence Unit, JNPT, Nhava Sheva that the appellant has been found involved in the misuse of advance licence and diversion of imported goods in local market by M/s. Chanakya Impex, Shri Mohan M.Shah, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m amount through Shri Ankush Yadav, one of the contact man of Shri Lalitbhai. 3. During the course of investigation, various persons statement were recorded and on the basis of investigation it emerges that the appellant has procured stamp paper for agreement between the parties for High Sea Sales in his name and as per Stamp Act6, the stamp paper is to be purchased in the name of parties to the contract. Therefore, the stamp paper on which High Seal Sales contract were made were fabricated documents, therefore they have violated the CHALR 2004. Another allegation is that after clearance of the goods, the goods have been diverted by the appellant as the said goods were not reached to the destination shown in the advance licence. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....main allegations against the appellant that the stamp paper on which High Sea Sales agreement was made, the stamp paper was purchased by the appellant in his name. Therefore High Sea Sales agreement is fabricated one. This allegation is not sustainable because on the basis of High Sea Sales agreement, goods were allowed to be cleared by the customs authorities at the time of presentation of bill of entry and they have not found that High Sea Sales agreement is fabricated. Therefore, the said allegation is not sustainable. He further submitted that in this case the second allegation against the appellant is that goods have not been delivered to the importer premises/merchant manufacturer's premises. In this regard, he submitted that the job ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e licences and remaining of the licences, they have partly discharged their export obligation. This contention has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the charges leveled against the appellant are not sustainable and proceedings under CHALR 2004 against the appellant be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Shri Prabhakar, ld. AR strongly opposed the contention of the counsel and submitted that as per Stamp Act, the stamp paper cannot be purchased in the name of the appellant, therefore the High Sea Sales agreement is not valid and appellant was actively involved the High Sea Sales transaction as well as in diversion of the goods as same has not been reached to the place as mentioned in the advance licence. He further su....