2007 (8) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spect of which the Commissioner had demanded duty of about Rs. 36.5 lakhs along with interest. The Appeal No. C/336/2000 seeks to vacate the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Shri Sushil Kumar Kanodia in the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that on receipt of intelligence to the effect that M/s. Piccadilly Tradisons (hereinafter referred to as 'PT'), Hyderabad had diverted raw silk imported under DEEC Scheme in the domestic market without fulfilling export obligation investigation was initiated into the imports made by PT. Statements were recorded from Shri Chandravadan Natwarlal Shah, Proprietor of PT, Shri Madhusudan Jhanwar, Partner of M/s. Gokul Textile Corporation, Shri S.K. Kanodia, a Consultant and Shri P.K. Kanodia, h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd Shri S.K. Kanodia. After due process of law, the Commissioner passed the impugned order. He found that PT had diverted imported raw silk contravening the post-import condition of converting the same to finished products and exporting the finished products. For the failure of importer to fulfil the conditions of the Notification No. 204/92, dated 19-5-1992, the raw silk had been was imported without valid licence and the same were liable for confiscation. Shri Chandravadan Natwarlal Shah was therefore found liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The imported goods were found to be ineligible for the exemption availed at the time of import. Shri S.K. Kanodia was found liable for penalty under Section 112(b) of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovisions of Section 114A could be invoked in proceedings that were pending on or initiated after 28-9-96. The Commissioner had erred in not imposing penalty on the importer under Section 114A. Ld. SDR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and also the grounds in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. We have carefully considered the case records and the submissions made by both sides. From the impugned order, we find that offending transactions had taken place in the year 1995. There is no evidence of serving Show Cause Notice on Shri S.K. Kanodia. It is however evident that he was not heard before the adjudication of the case. The Commissioner found the allegation against the appellants to have been established solely on the basis....