TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- under Section 112(a), (b) and 114(i) of the said Act. The other co-appellants namely Shri Nagjibhai Patel, Shri Nimesh Sanghvi, Shri Mohit Shah, Shri Anand Sanghvi and Shri Vikram Parmar have filed appeals against imposing of penalty under various provisions of Customs Act, 1962. 2. As all the appeals are arising out of a common order and are from common offence, therefore, all the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are having the licence for export unit in Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (in short SEEPZ) for taking over the operation of the unit with assets and liabilities. On 11.3.1998, on suspicion, the Custom Officers intercepted one auto rickshaw which was c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed under panchanama. A notebook containing incriminating records was also seized. The inventory revealed physical stock of cut and polished diamonds was 1309.40 carats as against the stock register weight of cut and polished diamonds as 1494.511 carats indicating there was a shortage of 185.11 carats in the stock. As regards the gold stocks, it was noticed that the total stock of gold in hand was 3272.00 grams whereas stock register showed gold weighing 2538.067 grams thus causing an excess of 733.935 grams. During the course of investigation, it was also revealed that the appellant firm involved in the activity of diverting the imported diamonds into DTA and the same was replaced by the local diamonds. On the basis of the statement of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghvi is not legally sustainable. On merits, he submitted that there are statements of the appellants that they have neither substitute the imported diamonds by locally procured diamonds and also produced the correlation of their imported diamonds with diamonds exported by them were of the same quality of diamonds, the said evidence has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. Furthermore, the diamonds which found in stock were compared with the imported diamonds in specification such as colour, grade, shape etc. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principle of natural justice with regard to the allegation of substitution of diamonds. 4.1 The learned Advocate further submitted in para 27 of the reply to the show-cause....