TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Original of the Commissioner, Customs, Kandla, and therefore we take-up all the four appeals together for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. M/s DMP Enterprises, Gandhidham, imported a consignment from M/s B S Trading Co Lle, Dubai, and filed Bill of Entry No 114575 dtd 12.6.2007 for clearance of the goods declared as "Baby Diapers". In the course of inspection of the container by the Customs Officials on 11.7.2007, it was found that in the front side of the container boxes containing Pamper brand diapers were stacked and behind it there were other boxes that were found to contain cosmetics and toiletry preparations ie., perfumes, deodorants, soaps, shampoos, talcum powder, hair gel and other goods having origin ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harges, payment of transportation charges, transportation of the cleared goods to Mumbai and their subsequent sale was being looked after by Shri Jayesh S Shah. Shri Bipin Shah was then shown a copy of letter dtd 23.7.07 bearing his signature and was asked as to whether he had written the said letter. In reply Shri Shah stated that the same had been drafted by their consultant and he had signed the same. He further stated that he does not know and has never met any person by the name Shri Jitu of M/s H D Associates, whose name has appeared in statement dtd 17.7.2007 of Shri Jayesh S Shah. 6. He further drew the attention of the Bench to Para 21 and 27 of the show cause notice, reproduced below: " 21. Whereas a statement of Shri Jay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be waved. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gaurang Goradia vs CC, Mumbai - 2007(209)ELT.354 (Tri Mumbai). 8. On the other hand, the Ld Counsel, Shri Paresh V Sheth appearing for Shri Jayesh S Shah drew the attention of the Bench to the fact that Shri Jayesh S Shah had retracted his statement dtd 17.7.2007 vide his letter dtd 23.1.2007. He had also submitted an affidavit dtd 3.8.2007 in this respect. Ld Counsel argued that he is an employee of a CHA and he had no knowledge of such import of branded diapers, cosmetics and toiletries and other goods by Shri Bipin J Shah. He had only advanced an amount of Rs. 25 lacs to his brother-in-law as assistance. Shri Bipin J Shah is the importer in legal terms as the goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for Revenue submits that he is the master mind behind the import as is evident from his statement dtd 17.7.2007 (relevant portion of which has been reproduced earlier). He has stated that Shri Jayesh S shah and Shri Jitu had planned the import of branded Diaper under the guise of unbranded diaper and that he has introduced Shri Jitu to his brother-in-law Shri Bipin J Shah. He also drew the attention of the Bench to the statement of Shri Bipin J Shah dtd 25.7.2007 (relevant portion of which has also been reproduced earlier) wherein Shri Bipin J Shah stated that the whole idea of import of branded Baby Diapers was that of Shri Jayesh S Shah who was doing business of import of perfumes, deodorants, soaps, shampoos, talcum powder etc., and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty imposed on Shri Bipin Shah, Shri Jayesh Shah and M/s B S Trading Co are warranted. 11. As regards the appeal filed by Revenue against the same impugned Order in Original, the Ld Authorised Representative submits that the Dept. has filed an appeal with the prayer that the Adjudicating Authority should have imposed equivalent penalty of the duty demanded under Section 114A of Customs Act, on the proprietor ship firm whereas the Adjudicating authority on the contrary imposed penalty of a paltry amount of Rs. 10 lacs only on the proprietor of the firm. He contended that if the Adjudicating Authority had imposed penalty under section 114A, it would have been Rs. 17,51,707/-. 12. On consideration of the arguments of the both Ld Counsels an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s penalty on Shri Bipin J Shah, the Revenue has filed an appeal praying that equivalent penalty under section 114A should be imposed on the proprietor-ship firm. We find that by the impugned Order in Original, the Adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs on Shri Bipin J Shah, Proprietor, and has not imposed any penalty on the proprietor-ship firm of Shri Bipin J Shah. It is settled law that no penalty can be imposed on both the proprietor-ship firm and the proprietor. The Dept has not filed appeal for setting aside the penalty of Shri Bipin J Shah. We also find that even if penalty was confirmed under Section 114A, it would have been to the tune of an amount of Rs. 17,51,707/- only whereas Adjudicating Authority has impos....