TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem. It was further revealed that they were also involved in under-invoicing the value of these vehicles at the time of import and thus, evading the differential customs duty on the same. The residential premises of Shri Sumit Walia was searched and various documents were found and it was found that Shri Sumit Wadia imported one Mercedes Benz GL 320 Cdi car bearing Chassis No.WDC1648222A28655 7 in the name of Shri Tarun Kumar. The Bill of Entry was filed in the name of Shri Tarun Kumar having Invoice No.6557, dated 17.03.2008 of Ms/ A.K. International (IE) Ltd. The price was declared as US$47,700.00, the duty was discharged on concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) as new car. Statement of Shri Sumit Walia and Shri G.S. Prince, the G-Card holder of the Appellant No.1 were recorded. Statement of Shri Tarun Kumar was also recorded and after conducting the investigations, it was revealed that the vehicle was sold to Shri Vishvas Udai Singh Laad, the Appellant No.2, a resident of Bangalore. Therefore, on 03.04.2013, the summons were issued to record the statement of the Appellant No.2. The premises of the Appellant No.2 were visited on 04.04.2013 and the car was seized. After se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of CC Vs. Noshire Moody [2012-TIOL-391-HC-MUM-CUS] and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Bhandare Vs. CC (Imports) [2012 (285) ELT 225 (Tri.)]. 4. It is further submitted that the value declared with the customs at UK was not discounted by the VAT which would be eligible as refund to the foreign suppliers and the contemporaneous imports are available to the proper officer at the time of importation. 5. For imposition of redemption fine, it is submitted that the appellant is bona fide purchaser of the car, therefore, the redemption fine is not imposable, for this, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CC Vs. Five Star Shipping Co. [2012 (278) ELT 196 (Kar.)], wherein it was held that the car which is cleared by the Customs Department and after such clearance, the purchase was effected by the bona fide purchaser, such bona fide purchaser is not liable to pay redemption fine even if the car was under valued and the original importer is liable to pay the differenial duty. He further submits that the redemption fine of Rs. 22 lakhs was excessively high and not comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to subsequent Show Cause Notice and was pleased to impose severe penalty on Shri G.S. Prince vide Orders in Original No.51 & 52/NLB/Commr./I&G/2014, both dated 31.07.2014 and no penalty was imposed on the appellant, after considering the material on record. This proves the innocence of the appellant. 7. He submits that in the case of CC Vs. Vaz Forwarding Ltd. [2011 (266) ELT 39 (Guj.)], the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dismissed the Revenues appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal wherein penalty was dropped on the CHA since there is no direct evidence on record that CHA was aware of the Advance licence being bogus and forged. He also relied on the decision of Honble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Raj Cleaning Agency [2006 (199) ELT 602 (Mumb)], in the case of Mahender Shah [2010 (261) 497 (Tri. Mumb.)] and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.Y. Ranade [2009 (248) ELT 495 (Tri. Mumb)], wherein it was held that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the CHA and an employee has suo moto acted for his personal greed and beyond the scope of his duty, therefore, the employer cannot be responsible and penalised under section 112 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he car and no statement of the appellant has been recorded and no role of the appellant has been discussed. Therefore, we hold that penalties under sections 112(a) and 114AA were not imposable on the appellant. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to take the possession of the car on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. 12. We find that in the case of Appellant No.1, no statement of the appellant was recorded. Moreover, during the course of hearing, the appellant has submitted that Shri G.S. Prince is a G card holder and has acted in his own capacity to get the monetary benefits from the business dealings with Shri Sumit Walia and the appellant was not having any knowledge of such importation. We further find that in subsequent proceedings on the same investigation in other imports of car by the same persons on the request of the appellant, Shri G.S. Prince was made the party to the Show Cause Notice and in those cases, the adjudicating authority has observed as under:- "(F) Coming on the question of penalty on noticee No.(vi) M/s. Buhariwala Logistics I observe that in the show cause notice MN/s. Buhariwala Logistics have been charged through their G-Card Hol....