TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- within four weeks from the date of the order against the impugned demand of penalty in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/-; and ordered that upon compliance, there would be waiver of deposit of the balance amount. The matter herein being related only with the quantum of the amount involved in the prayer for waiver of the condition of predeposit, we do not propose to deal with the merits of the case and hence, dilatation on all the factual aspects is not necessary. Only a brief reference to the relevant background aspects of the matter would suffice. The Order-in-Original No.4/2013 dated 12.03.2013 came to be passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur with reference to the show cause notices issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g a great amount of trust on them. However, the noticee has betrayed that trust by permitting the third party to hold the custody and transport of the export cargo, which was replaced by prohibited goods. Thus, it is clear that by doing aforesaid unauthorized and illegal acts, they were instrumental in facilitating the smuggling of red sanders wood out of country to the exporter. It is clear that the noticee acted in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 6(i), (k) and 6(2) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. Thus I have no doubt while holding that M/s Max Shipping & Forwarders P Ltd. are guilty of abetment of smuggling of red sanders and are liable for penalty under section 114(i) of Customs Act 1962." In view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the appeals so filed against the aforesaid order dated 12.03.2013, the Tribunal has passed the common impugned order dated 21.10.2013 after finding prima facie involvement of the different appellants one way or the other. As noticed, the Tribunal has directed the present petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- against the demand in question. The Tribunal has also directed the Operational Executive of the petitioner-Company to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- against the penalty levied upon them. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia, with the submissions that instead of dealing with the persons directly and actively inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, so far the case of the petitioners in CWP Nos.14363/2013 and 14364/2013 is concerned, looking to the amount directed to be deposited i.e., the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- respectively, we are unable to to find a case of undue hardship so as to warrant interference in the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. These writ petitions are required to be, and are, therefore, dismissed. So far petitioner of CWP No.14362/2013 is concerned, it has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as against the disputed due demand of about Rs.50,00,000/-. The matter, only as regards quantum, prima facie appears calling for consideration, particularly looking to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....another Shri Shahnavaz N.Gavli. The acts and omissions of want of due diligence as also not coming out forthright in relation to the investigation, have been levelled against the Operational Executive and the Managing Director of the petitioner- Company, whose petitions have already been dismissed, as noticed hereinbefore. So far the petitioner-Company is concerned, the basis of quantum of penalty i.e., Rs.50,00,000/- is not available as such in the order dated 12.03.2013. For the present purpose, we are of the view that when the petitioner has deposited a substantial amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in terms of the order passed by this Court on 19.12.2013, any direction for deposit of any further amount may cause undue hardship to the petitioner.....