2015 (2) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave been imposed of Rs. 25 lakhs, 20 lakhs, 20 lakhs and 20 lakhs respectively under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that Shri Vinod Kr. Bansal who used the DEPB scrips for free importation of goods which were required to be exported after manufacturing but the imported goods were diverted into local market after importation.  DRI booked a case and matter was investigated, it was found that all these goods were purchased by Shri Vinod Kumar Garg and the imports made through Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal in the name of M/s Dollar Poly Pipes (India) Ltd. and M/s Shivalik Plastichem (India) Ltd. After investigation, it is revealed that the appellants were involved in the illegal imports of the goods which wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellants submits that in this case imports have been made through ICD, TKD and Mumbai port. The imports made through ICD, TKD has been settled by the Settlement Commission vide order mentioned herein above. Therefore the penalties on the appellants qua imports through ICD, TKD is not imposable as held by the Tribunal in the case of S.K. Colombowala Vs. CC (Import), Mumbai 2007 (220) ELT 492 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. For imports made from Mumbai port, it is the contention of the ld. Counsels that appellants before us were not the party to the Show Cause Notice. Therefore penalties on the appellants are not imposable. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order qua imposing penalty on all the appellants be set aside. 5. On t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asons given above the Bench in exercise of Commissions powers under Section 127-I of the Act sends the case with regard to the applicant Shri Virender Bansal back to the proper officer who shall dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if no application under Section 127B of the Act had been made by the said applicant. As the observation of the Settlement Commission is that Shri Bansal had no way approached the Settlement Commission. Therefore the case of Shri Bansal is equated with the other appellants before us. 8. We find that in this case S.K. Colombowala (supra) this Tribunal has held that if the case has been settled before the Settlement Commission, the proceedings against all the co noticees come to an en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....30 of the Hand Book of Procedures for the year 2002-2007 to the reason as discussed in Para 56 to 58 above. (b) Customs duty amounting to Rs. 7,82,711/- (Rs. Seven lakhs eighty two thousands seven hundred eleven only), which was foregone at the time of import, should not be demanded and recovered from them under the proviso to Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs exemption Notification No. 43/2002-Cus dated 19.4.2002 due to the reason as discussed in para 56 to 58 above. (c) Interest should not be recovered from the importer under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs exemption Notification No. 43/2002-Cus dated 19.4.2002 due to the reason as discussed in para 56 to 58 above. (d) Penalty should not be impos....