TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proposition of Revenue is verifiable from record and that is agreeable. 3. Revenue further says that all the four respondents were involved in commitment of fraud against Revenue claiming and abetting to claim DEPB fraudulently as well as Vishnu Kumar Gupta, Vishwas Anant Satam and Manoj Arora were actively and consciously involved in deceiving Customs being members of the racket involved in the above fraud. There being common cause involved in all the appeals of Revenue and common adjudication order was passed, Revenue submits that all such appeals may be heard analogous and disposed. 4. Learned DR further brings out that the sum and substance of the allegations against all the respondents is as under which demonstrates that all the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taking value cap of Rs. 125/- per kg wherever applicable into consideration. vii) The amount received over and above the FOB value determined on the goods actually exported as per Annexure-BI and B-II to the show cause notice were the remittance received by the export by unlawful reasons and action under the law was liable to be taken accordingly. viii) The drawback claimed and pending sanction was to be confined to the redetermined value of the goods. ix) Penalty was imposable on the respondents under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. x) The amount of Rs. 51 lakhs deposited by M/s. Alpha was adjustable against fine/penalty imposable on M/s. Alpha. 5. Heard Revenue and perused the record. 6. While learned adjudicating authority ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms Act, 1962, read with section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Rule 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, so as to claim fraudulently excess DEPB amounting to Rs. 1,38,44,632/-; b) had deliberately mis-declared the description and quantity of the stainless steel utensils and misrepresented to the Central Excise and Customs authorities, thereby rendered the goods valued at Rs. 11,41,05,264/- FOB and the quantity of 883.074 MT exported by M/s. Alpha is liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962; c) had done acts which have rendered the impugned goods liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and 113(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the quantity of the stainless steel utensils as required under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Rule 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, so as to claim fraudulently excess DEPB amounting to Rs. 1,38,44,632/-; b) had deliberately mis-declared the description and quantity of the stainless steel utensils and misrepresented to the Central Excise and Customs authorities, thereby rendered the goods valued at Rs. 11,41,05,264/- FOB and the quantity of 883.074 MT exported by M/s. Alpha is liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962; c) had done acts which have rendered the impugned goods liable for co....