TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Director of appellant La Grande Projects Ltd. Both these appeals have been filed with respect to OIO No. 22/99-COMMR dt 22/11/97 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Goa as Adjudicating authority. 2. Sh. K. K. Anand (Advocate) Appearing for appellant La Grande Projects Ltd argued that no adverse order has been passed by the Adjudicating authority against this appellant and appeal filed by this client may be allowed to be withdrawn. 3. Learned Advocate Sh. K. K. Anand appearing for the appellant Sh. Natwar Dalmia argued that his client has been visited with a penalty of Rs. 105 lakh under Sec 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. That no statement of the appellant was recorded by the investigation and has been implicated o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned Advocate made the bench go through Para- 8 of final order dt 5/8/2002 where appeal of the Revenue proposing imposition of penalty against Natwar Dalmia was dismissed. That Revenue filed WP No. 1514 of 2005 in Bombay High Court against the said order dt 5/8/2002 passed by CESTAT. Mumbai High Court Bombay remanded the case to CESTAT by order dt 13/6/2005. That vide final order No. A/850 to 853/ WZB/05/CI dt 18/7/2008 dt 18/7/2005 CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue asking for interalia, imposition of penalty upon Natwar Dalmia. That the case against the appellant decided by CC Indore was finally disposed by CESTAT Delhi as per case law La Grande Projects Ltd Vs CC Indore [2005 (192) ELT 874 (Tri-Del)] where no penalty upon Sh.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty has been correctly imposed upon appellant Natwar Dalmia by the Adjudicating authority under Sec 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962 which is reproduced below:- "SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc,- Any person,- (a) Who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or................". 5.1. It is the case of this appellant that similar proceedings for the import of diesel engines imported by appellant La Grande were initiated by the department at Mumbai & Indore and both these proceedings culminated under Final order No. A/850 to 853/ WZB/05/CI/ dt 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts to de any act . In the present case, that person is the public limited company and not the individual person (appellant). Therefore, person who attracted the penalty is the limited company." 5.2.1 Similar view was expressed by CESTAT Delhi in Para 6.6 of case law Well Weave Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Jaipur (Supra). 5.3. In the present case appellant Natwar Dalmia is not any office bearer of La Grande and has not signed any Customs documents. His statement has also not been recorded by the department. The findings given by the Adjudicating authority, on internal page- 40 of OIO dt 22/11/1997 is that Shri Natwar Dalmia & his family have orchestrated the whole fraud with the sole intention of selling the good. No findings have been gi....