2015 (12) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ning the facts, the Jt. DGFT also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs on the appellant. The appellant appealed against the said order before the Additional DGFT who rejected the said appeal. The VKUY scrips issued to the appellant was cancelled and they paid the penalty imposed on them. During investigation, Shri Najmuddin a Jessani, the proprietor of the firm, who was looking after most of the functions like purchase of vegetables, interacting with the DGFT staff, claiming VKUY licence, etc, admitted that he himself submitted the export promotion copies of free shipping bills, invoices and copies of bank realization certificates along with the application to DGFT. He also claimed that sometimes, he gave documents to its agent for submittin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry there were no goods and therefore, no penalty under Section 114AA can be imposed. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of S. Chandrasekharan vs. CC, Hyderabad - 2009 (247) ELT 405 wherein it has been held that penalty under Section 114 cannot be imposed unless there is confiscation of goods. 4. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 5. I have gone through the rival contentions. I find that the fact that VKUY scrips have been claimed on the basis of purged shipping bills has not been challenged. The primary challenge before the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) was on two counts. (i) that they have been severely punished by cancellation of full scrip even i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the country is involved there are separate sections dealing with the legal provisions. Section 114AA specifically deals with cases where documentation, which is incorrect or false. There may been cases where documents are made and there no movement of goods either way and benefits are claimed. Section 114AA is intended to cover those cases. In this respect, the term of "penalty not exceeding five times of the value of the goods" needs to be read as "penalty not exceeding five times of the value of the goods declared in the said declaration or statements or documents". The appellants relies on the case law with reference to the Section 114 is not relevant that in so far as Section 114 deals with violation in respect of actual movement of goo....