TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Texturised Yarn classifiable under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. On 7.6.2002 the officer of the Customs (Preventive), Customs Division, Surat, visited the factory premises of the M/s Shailja and found that M/s Shailja received 51,852 kgs of imported Polyester Yarn (POY) through the brokers and 7200 kgs of imported POY from Shabnam Synthetics (in short M/s Shabnam) a 100% EOU, without the cover of any documents and without payment of any duty. The goods were seized by the Customs Officer on 7.6.2002. After thorough investigation, it was found that M/s Shailja indulged in purchase of POY without payment of customs duty, without cover of proper document ie., invoice, Challans, bills etc. The seized goods were released ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Signatory of M/s Shabanam Synthetics e) Rs. 2,00,000/- on Shri Rajkumar S Dayama, Yarn Broker f) Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Abhishek Anil Agarwal, Yarn Broker g) Rs. 2,00,000/- Shri Prashant D Somaiya, Yarn Broker 4. Shri Mukund Chouhan, the Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of Shailja and its Director, employee and the brokers except Shri Prasant D Somaiya, submits that the imported goods are notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act 1962. He submits that M/s Shailja procured the goods 7200 kgs from M/s Shabnam (a 100% EOU). Further, some quantity of POY, out of 51,852 kgs were procured from M/s Lucky and no investigation was conducted with the brokers and the demand of duty on the appellant is not sustainable. He further submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods. It is stated that they have just introduced the buyers and sellers. He submits that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner, CCE vs Hanif Hingora - 2010(258)ELT.35 (Guj.) held that respondent had no knowledge about the goods being liable for confiscation and imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 is not justified. 6. The Learned Advocate, Shri Dhaval Shah, appearing on behalf of the M/s Shabnam, its Director, and employees, submits that the demand of duty on M/s Shabnam is merely based on statements. They have not supplied the goods to M/s Shailja and the statements were retracted in reply to show cause notice. It is further submitted that the penalty was imposed under Section 112 without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cleared the goods without payment of duty to M/s Shailja. He further submits that M/s Shailja could not produce any evidence in support of procurement of 51852 kgs of imported POY. It is submitted that the brokers and sub-brokers, Director and employees of both the firms were involved in procurement of goods, without payment of duty and the penalties imposed on the appellants are legal and proper. 8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that POY is a notified item under section 123 of the Act 1962 and the burden lies with the appellants. M/s Shailja are not disputing the demand of duty to the quantity of 51582 kgs except 15840 kgs. The Learned Counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the Adjudication order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the demand of duty was confirmed under Section 28(2) of the Customs Acct, 1962 and the demand of interest under Section 28AB of the Act is justified. 10. Regarding imposition of penalty on M/s Shailja and M/s Sabanam, the Learned Advocate submitted that the specific provision of 112 of the Act was not mentioned in the show cause notice. We find that in this case, facts of the case had been narrated in detail for invoking the penal provision, which was not disputed by the appellants and the case laws cannot be applicable in this case. The submissions of the appellant that the quantum of penalty is excessive and harsh required to be considered. 11. The Learned Advocate on behalf of M/s Shailja strongly submits that the items are not proh....