2015 (11) TMI 814

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Trisuns chemical Industries Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Company) a unit set up in Kandla Special Economic Zone, engaged in the manufacture of Castor Oil of different grades. They had another unit in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) at Bhachau. A Show Cause Notice dtd 27.7.2004 was issued to the Company proposing demand of duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the said Company, amongst others, including the appellant herein. It has been alleged that the said Company had been regularly exporting their products to other countries via manipulating/forging documents to claim the export to be to Russia against payment received in Rupees whereas the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lf of the Shri Liladhar submits that Shri Liladhar has no involvement and submits that it is apparent from the records that the allegations levelled against the said Company cannot be sustained as the goods were exported by the said Company. He further submits that Shri Liladhar has no involvement on the alleged irregularities. The entire case against the appellant was made out on the basis of the statement of Shri Sanjay Ahuja, employee of the said Company. The request for cross examination of Shri Sanjay was denied and there is a gross violation of principle of natural justice. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of Adjudication Order. It is submitted that the appellant had not given any instruction to Shri Sanjay f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Cause Notice and Adjudication Order to establish that the appellant had not gained anything and therefore no penal provision should be invoked. He relied upon the following decisions: i) M/s Tejas Networks India Ltd vs CCE, Pondichery 2014(302)ELT.80(Tri. Chennai) ii) M/s RK Ispat Udyog Vs CCE, Raipur 2007(211)ELT.460 (Tri.Del.) iii) M/s Caropnter Classic Exim Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Bangalore 2006(200)ELT.593 (Tri.Bang) iv) M/s Hazel Mercantile Ltd vs CCE, Mumbai 2014(308)ELT.113 (Tri.Mum) 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of therecords, we find that the said Company is a public limited company. On a query from the Bench, the Learned Advocate submits that the said company was controlled by the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....akshi L Khushalani were the Directors of the said Company. Shri Liladhar had been looking after the day-to-day work of the Company at SEZ and Bhachau units and overall in-charge of the activities of the units. These facts were not seriously disputed by the appellant and therefore cross examination of his employee is not necessary. Hence, in our considered view the imposition of penalty on the appellant is justified. 7. The said Company obtained DEPB license fraudulently and facilitated the various importers to import the goods duty free and imposition of penalty under Section 112 is justified. It is noted that the said Company exported the goods in irregular manner and penalty under 114 is warranted. It is further noted that the said com....