AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1075
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacturer M/s. Paradigm were in appeal before Tribunal in appeal Nos.C/311 and 312/08 respectively, against present impugned order. But their appeals were dismissed for their failure to make compliance with pre-deposit order No.S/454-455/08/CSTB/C-I dated 28.7.2008. 2. According to Revenue, present batch of appeals arising out of common cause as that was involved in the above said dismissed appeals relate to breach of law committed by the aforesaid two parties who perpetuated fraud against Revenue and present appellants were members of that racket causing subterfuge to public Revenue. Imports were made by M/s. Chanakya Impex as a pretended high seas buyer of the goods while bills of lading were in the name of M/s Sun Impex, M/s Kanakrat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rahul Jain 10,00,000 13 M. K. Industries 10,00,000 3. None present for appellants in the present batch of appeals to lead defence if any. 4. Summary of material facts placed by learned AR and her contentions are as under:- (1) On the basis of an intelligence that M/s Chanakya Impex was diverting the goods imported duty free under the Advance license scheme to local market,, a search was carried out on 22.12.2004 at the premises of branch office of M/s Chanakya Impex at Silvassa and the factory premises of M/s Paradigm, the supporting manufacturer. (2) During the search of the factory premises of M/s Paradigm, it was found that only four machines out of the five machines installed were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing person of M/s Sun Impex and M/s Kanakratna Steel would deposit cash in his (Mohan Shah) current account and he would use it to issue cheque in the name of these firms to be shown as payment for the high sea sale. In reality, the import was of M/s Kanakratna Steel, M/s Sun Impex and M/s Reliance Stainless Steel only and the goods were delivered directly to them. (5) Lalit Mange used to prepare all documents pertaining to the high sea sale. Even the stamp papers required for the high sea sale contract were procured by Ami clearing and Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. of Lalit Mange. (6) Lalit Mange used to pay Mohan Shah a premium of Rs. 15-17 per kg. for facilitating the above imports. Lalit Mange had also arranged the transportati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of investigation, 28 packages of stainless steel coils/ sheets valued at Rs. 20,00,000/- were seized from the premises of M/s Kanakratna Steel and one package of stainless steel coils/ sheet valued at Rs. 2,88,000 was seized from the premises of M/s Reliance Stainless Steel. (10) On completion of investigation, a show cause notice was issued on 1.2.2006. The SCN was adjudicated vide order dated 31.12.2007 confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 4,67,79,479.46/- on M/s Chanakya Impex and goods valued at Rs. 9,50,30,417.43/- were held liable for confiscation and redemption fine of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- was imposed. Further goods seized from the premises of M/s Reliance Stainless Steel and M/s Kanakratna steel was also held liable for con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see the light of the day only when the process of law unearths the same. (14) Similarly, investigations in this case as detailed above have clearly brought out the true nature and enormity of the fraud which has caused a loss of revenue Rs. 4.67 crores to the government exchequer. Appellants have defrauded Revenue. Therefore, these people don t deserve any leniency. Those are to be dismissed and penalty imposed on them may be upheld. (15) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Essar Oil Ltd. reported in 2004 (172) ELT. 0433 SC had held as follows "31. "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or word....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SC) (iii) Satish Mohan Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Sea-Export), Chennai reported in 2016 (336) ELT. 562 (Tri-Chennai) (iv) Antoine &Becouerel Organic Chem. Co. Vs. CC (Airport & Aircargo), Chennai reported in 2016(341) ELT 122(Tri-Chennai) 5. To explain its case further, learned DR made following pictorial presentation demonstrating involvement of the parties as under:- 6. Heard Revenue and perused the records. 7. The above said corroborated material facts and evidence on record brings out succinctly the questionable modus operandi followed by these appellants as a member of duty evasion racket. They were contributory to the fraud against Revenue consciously and deliberately. To hide identity of the actua....