TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposed by the adjudicating authority as indicated below: SN Name of Applicant-Assessee Penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 Penalty under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 1 M/s Dadi Impex Pvt Ltd Rs. 1.50 Crores Rs. 1.50 Crores 2 Shri Anand Prakash Chaudhary Rs. 1.50 Crores Rs. 1.50 Crores 3 M/s Maruti Seeds & Fertilizers Rs. 75 Lakhs Rs. 75 Lakhs 4 Shri Shyam C. Ghelani Rs. 75 Lakhs Rs. 75 Lakhs 5 M/s Dinesh Agro Sales Rs. 30 Lakhs Rs. 30 Lakhs 6 M/s Sharad Agro Centre Rs. 20 Lakhs Rs. 20 Lakhs 7 M/s Poshak Fertilizers Rs. 7.5 Lakhs Rs. 7.5 Lakhs 8 M/s Sardar Kheti Vikas Kendra Rs. 7.5 Lakhs Rs. 7.5 Lakhs 9 Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P.D. Rachchh submits that the appellant M/s Sardar Kheti Vikas Kendra is a dealer of MOP. It is his submission that as a dealer, he was not aware that the goods were to be exported. 3.2 Ld. Counsel Shri Dhaval K. Shah, appearing on behalf of M/s Poshak Fertilizers submits that they are the distributor of Potash and have purchased the potash from M/s Indian Potash Ltd and sold it to further dealers as per the provisions of Fertilizers Act and rules made there under and were not aware that the goods will be diverted down the line by the dealer/purchaser. 3.3 Ld. Counsel Shri P.V. Sheth submits that the appellant Shri Brijesh H. Advani is an employee and could not know for what reason the goods are imported and was not aware that MOP was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they cannot be visited with any penalty as the records are maintained as per the provisions of law. 3.7 Ld. Counsel Shri Hardik Modh, appears on behalf of CHA M/s G.S. Walia and submit that as a CHA, they should not be visited with penalty as they have filed the documents as was required under the Customs Act and were not aware that MOP is being exported in the guise of Industrial Salt. 4. Ld. D.R. submits that all the appellants herein should be put to some condition as held by this Bench is Stay Order dated.21.11.2012, as the issue involved in these cases is identical to the issue therein. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the allegations against M/s Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of pre-deposit of amount of Central Excise duty, interest thereof and the penalties. Accordingly, we find that no amount needs to be stayed by this Tribunal in these two stay petitions. Accordingly, these two stay petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. 7.3 This takes us to the various other persons on whom the penalties have been imposed by adjudicating authority under Section 112(b) and Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962. 7.4 As regards penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962, none of the appellants herein had imported the goods. The appellants herein were charged for export of MOP in the guise of Industrial Salt. Accordingly, we find that the penalties imposed under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962, by ....