TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the local market with the help of yarn brokers Mangilal Himmatlal Jain, Deepak Sharma and Ranmal. He also admitted manipulation of records of the factory of his firm to cover up the diversion and the money received from local sale of the imported goods was deposited in the bank accounts of M/s Jay Vijay Textile and M/s Ambika Trading Co. which were proprietary concerns owned by Pinkesh Jain. 2.3 Sri Pinkesh Jain further admitted that the RG-16 Registers was fabricated and entries therein were manipulated by his employee under his direction and imported yarn were diverted to local market. Appellant was recording disproportionate consumption of about 30 kgs of yarn in the RG-16 register for manufacture of grey fabrics of 10 kgs. Similarly as against actual wastage of 5MT, appellant was claiming wastage of 55 MT on three different occasions during the period January to October 2000 (Ref: page 10 of the OIO). 2.4 Sri Pinkesh Jain also admitted that raw materials and manufacturing records were destroyed to escape from scrutiny under law. On 14.02.2001 and 19.02.2001 he revealed the quantum of goods involved in different Bills of Entry which were diverted to market identifying t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bhiwandi MH-04P 8104 Details not known 3. 373 dt. 2.2.2000 MH-04H 5680 Jaisingh Rale Jai Transport Agency, Bhiwandi MH-04H 6459 Popat Gaikwad 4. 6033 dt. 28.2.2000 MH-04H 5680 Jaisingh Rale Jai Transport Agency, Bhiwandi MH-04P 4277 AbasahebJadhav 5. 3038 dt. 9.3.2000 MCY-2877 Uttam V Pawade Factory of M/s Umaji Overseas MWF-4289 Details not known MMS-110 Sandeep Khilare 6. 1844 dt. 12.6.2000 MH-04 3271 BaluKhote Draupadi Chaya Compound, Bhiwandi MH-04H 5680 Jaisingh Rale 7. 1860 dt. 12.6.2000 MH-04P 5155 PrabhakarPingale Draupadi Chaya Compound, Bhiwandi MMK-994 SudhakarShende 8. 421098 dt. 3.10.2000 MH-04P 5155 AmbadasUnde Factory of Umaji Overseas MH-14 4189 Santosh Andhale MXL-5287 Vijay R Mote 9. 421554 dt. 5.10.2000 MH-16-9792 Bira N Khot Factory of Umaji Overseas MWT-6692 Details not known MH-04P 5831 Details not known 2.9 The goods imported in terms of bills of entry mentioned at sr. no. 1 to 4, of the Table above were unloaded at the private godown of Jai Transport Agency at Bhiwandi on the instructio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he detention order was revoked by Government of Maharashtra against representation of Smt. Ratnaben P Jain. 3. Above said commitment of breach of law was explained by Revenue by following flow chart for appreciation: 4. Revenue relied on the following decisions to submit that fraud against Revenue should be delt deterrently to save public revenue. Sl No Case Laws Citation Page no. 1 Collector of Customs, Madras vs. D. Bhoormull 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (SC) 1 2 Commissioner of Customs vs. Candid Enterprises 2000 (130) ELT. 404 (SC) 9 3 Romesh Chandra Mehta vs. State of West Bengal 1999 (110) ELT 324 (SC) 10 4 Sun Informatics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi 2009 (248) ELT 158 (Tri-Del) 17 5 Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chem. Co. Vs. CC (Airport &Aircargo), Chennai. 2016 (341) ELT 122(Tri-Chennai) 18 5. Heard Revenue. 6. On the basis of investigation, show-cause notice was issued on 16.12.2004 making allegation of involvement of appellants in the aforesaid activities. They failed to defend on the allegations leading any cogent or credible evidence to the contrary. Therefore adjudication resulted in duty demand o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d following mischievous modus operandi with oblique motive of under enrichment at the cost of Revenue. i. Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. D. Bhoormull reported in 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (SC) ii. Commissioner of Customs Vs. Candid Enterprises reported in 2000 (130) ELT. 404 (SC) iii. Romesh Chandra Mehta Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1999 (110) ELT 324 (SC) iv. Sun Informatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi reported in 2009 (248) ELT 158 (Tri-Del) v. Antoine &Becouerel Organic Chem. Co. Vs. CC (Airport &Aircargo), Chennai. Reported in 2016 (341) ELT 122(Tri-Chennai) 11. Fraud in the eyes of law is viewed as under: (A) If a party makes representations which he knows to be false and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad is considered to be fraud in the eyes of law. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud when that results in deceiving and leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe on falsehood. Of course, innocent misrepresentation may give reason to claim relief against fraud. In the case of Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on falsehood has no right to seek relief in equity [Ref : S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 S.C. 853]. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. [Ref : Commissioner of Customs v. Essar Oil Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 364 = 2004 (172) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)]. (E) When material evidence establishes fraud against Revenue, white collar crimes committed under absolute secrecy shall not be exonerated as has been held by Apex Court judgment in the case of K.I. Pavunny v. AC, Cochin - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). No adjudication is barred under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 if Revenue is defrauded for the reason that enactments like Customs Act, 1962, and Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are not merely taxing statutes but are also potent instruments in the hands of the Government to safeguard interest of the economy. One of its measures is to prevent deceptive practices of undue claim of fiscal incentives. (F) It is cardinal principle of law which is enshrined in Section 17 of Limitation Act that fraud nullifies everyth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... probability came to the rescue of Revenue lending credence to its case. 14. Enactments like Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Tariff Act, 1975, are not merely taxing statutes but are also potent instruments in the hands of the Government to safeguard interest of the economy. One of its measures is to prevent deceptive practices of undue claim of fiscal incentives. Evidence Act not being applicable to quasi-judicial proceeding, preponderance of probability comes to rescue of Revenue and Revenue is not required to prove its case by mathematical precision. Exposing premeditated design of appellants to cause prejudice to Revenue. Revenue discharged its onus of proof. Appellants failed to discharge their burden of proof against allegation made in the show-cause notice. Evidence gathered by Revenue provided reasonable basis for adjudication which could not be demolished by appellants by any means. They failed to lead any cogent evidence to rule out their role in commitment of the offence alleged when they failed to come out with clean hands, no immunity from penalty can be granted to them. Therefore irresistible conclusions that can be drawn is that Revenue having proved its case very su....