2008 (1) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s  was transferred to the account of Le Designco; the cash deposited into these accounts  represented sale proceeds of raw silk sold by Shri Javed Alam through Shri Subhash Gupta and Shri Jivraj S.Rathi although  the sale of the raw silk which was imported against non transferable QABL  was not permissible as export obligation was not  fulfilled; and   that the appellant had aided and abetted in selling of the exempted raw silk imported against 9 Advance Licences issued by Le Designco  prior to the fulfillment of export obligation  which was in contravention of provisions of EXIM policy 1992-97 and Notification No.204/92-Cus.  Show cause notice dated 14.7.1998 was issued to the appellant pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....002 (148) E.L.T. 161] holding that the expression "in any other manner dealing with any goods"  must relate to physical contact with the goods is relevant.  In this case, the appellant has not physically dealt with any goods and therefore,  penalty cannot be imposed upon him under Sec. 112(b) in the light of the above decision.  The decision in the Godrej  Boyce & Mfg.Co.Ltd. has been affirmed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India Ltd & Ors vs CCE, Indore [2007(83) RLT 378] wherein it has been held that for the purpose of imposition of penalty under  Rule 209A of the C.Ex.Rules, 1944 a person must have dealt  with goods physically  and must have knowledge that the goo....