TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ners have filed these Writ Petitions challenging the Order-in-Original No.54566/2017, dated 31.03.2017, passed by the respondent. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Commissionerate No.III, Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), Chennai, issued show cause notice, dated 22.08.2016, to the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. The petitioners in W.P.No.26261 of 2017, were arrayed as noticees No.1,5,6 & 7. The petitioners in W.P.No.26262 of 2017 were arrayed as noticees No.4&8. The petitioners in W.P.No.26263 of 2017, were arrayed as noticees No.2 & 5. Apart from the petitioners, there were two more noticees, namely, M/s.SLO Industries and its Director Mr.Anil Kumar Ojha, who were arrayed as noticees 3 & 2. These two not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re noted by the Inspecting Officers. The office premises of these two companies and the residential premises of the Directors of both the companies could not be searched as the same were locked. Mr.Pramod Kumar Saraf (Mr.Saraf) is one of the Directors of Jai Bhawani as well as SDS, who was summoned to appear on 11.11.2010, but did not appear and again he was summoned on 18.11.2010, but expressed his inability on the ground of illhealth. Again, he was summoned on 26.11.2010, but did not respond to the summon and the other Director of SDS, though summoned twice also did not appear. Mr.Saraf apprehending arrest, moved this Court for grant of Anticipatory Bail in Crl.O.P.No.26975 of 2010, which was dismissed by order dated 15.12.2010. Search an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 111(j) of the Act; why customs duty should not be demanded along with applicable interest; why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of the Act and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 114AA of the Act. The noticee directors were called upon to show cause as to why personal penalty should not be imposed on them. 7. As prefaced in the preceding paragraphs, the challenge to the impugned Order-in-Original is on the ground that the petitioners did not have adequate opportunity to put forth their submissions. The correctness of the stand is to be examined on the materials available on record. Mr.Saraf vide letter dated 28.09.2016, acknowledged the receipt of the show cause notice and requested for grant of 60 days time....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Mr.Ojha is that they are neither the importer of the goods nor the warehouse keeper and he is an independent owner of his business having transaction with several parties including Jai Bhawani and SDS and produced certain records to substantiate his stand and requested for dropping the proceedings against his company and himself. 8. On 04.01.2017, Mr.Saraf, sent a letter to the Department stating that he was in Kolkata and he was not well and requested 30 days time to submit his reply to the show cause notice and appear for a personal hearing. This request was accepted by the Department and a letter was sent to him intimating that personal hearing was scheduled on 31.01.2017 at 12.30 p.m. Once again by another letter dated 31.01.2017,....