TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 831
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Lakshan Electronics Pvt. Ltd, (or a front face) wherein the present appellant was also co-noticee among others. It is alleged in the show-cause notice that the appellant / M/s. Hab s Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Hab s International, Bombay is causing import of large quantity of electronic items on a highly under invoiced value by using dummy fronts name viz. M/s Lakshan Electronics, represented by D.P. Dalal of Goa and M/s. Maruti Enterprises, Mumbai and that for his dealings with M/s. Lakshan Electronics,, K.S. Bhasin has recruited one Mr. Jatin Shah of Mumbai as Liaison Officer. Officers of Marine & Preventive Wing, Mumbai took up investigations in the matter. Pursuant to above investigation, a consignment of 60 Satellite Receivers, totally value at Rs. 1,80,028/- (C.I.F) value for which Bill of Entry No.6 and 7 dated 03.11.1992 were filed by M/s. Lakshan Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was seized on 26.11.1992 under a reasonable belief that the said goods are liable for confiscation. In view of the foregoing, it appears that appellant Shri K.S. Bhasin of M/s Habs Electronics, had been regularly causing imports of Electronic goods and parts in violation of the Import Trade (Control) Restricti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir acts of omission and commission in relation to the goods under seizure/detention which have rendered them liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), 111(d), 111(o) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s Hab s Electronics Pvt. Ltd., its director Shri K.S. Bhasin, M/s. Lakshan Electronics, Goa its Director D.P. Dalal, Shri Jatin Shah and Shri Ramesh Chander Malik, Shri Suresh Rawtani have rendered themselves liable to penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The show-cause notices were adjudicated by Deputy Commissioner of Customs observing that the retractory statement of Shri K.S. Bhasin made after two days of recording his statement is not tenable in the absence of evidence of receipt of his retraction in the Marine & Preventive Wing of the Mumbai Customs and placing reliance on the admission of Shri K.S. Bhasin and enhancing the value under Rule 11 of the Customs Valuation (determination of Price) Rules, 1988 read with Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs duty amounting to Rs. 4,31,922/- is recoverable from Shri D.P. Dalal of M/s. Lakshan Electronics. While accepting the contention of Shri D.P. Dalal that he was not aware of under-v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of abetment on the appellant, which is completely impermissible. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dass Photo Electronics Vs. CC - 1987 (30) ELT 988 (Tri.). Further, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that I find that the appellant was interested in imported electronic items, but such import required actual user condition. Through one Mr DK Ramesh Kothari, the appellant came in contact of Mr Jatin Shah, who also knew Mr Dalal of M/s. Lakshan Electronics, which is a manufacturing unit. Mr Shah worked as a middleman between Lakshan electronics and the appellant. The import was effected by Lakshan Electronics, who delivered it to Mr Shah, who in turn gave it to the appellant. Thus, it is evident from the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the present appellant had only purchased the goods locally after they were cleared from the customs by the importer who had then handed it over to Mr Shah, who in turn had sold it to the appellant. For there to the abetment, it has to be established that the person who is alleged to have abetted had instigated or participated in the offence. Reliance of the ruling of Hon'ble High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal and this Tribunal vide final order dated 29th October 1996 being order No. 3659/96 WZB dated 29.10.1996 observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the findings on all charges against the appellant except that relating to undervaluation for which the liability has been ordered to be re-determined. In such situation, this Tribunal remanded the matter on the issue of penalty to the Deputy Commissioner to determine the quantum of penalty commensurate with the final determination on the charge of undervaluation in denovo proceedings. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 10. The learned A.R. for revenue have relied upon the impugned order. 11. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the Deputy Commissioner has travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice as there is no allegation in the notice that the appellant had abetted with anybody else in the alleged violation of the customs Act read with Import Trade (Control) Regulation. The main allegation in the Notice was that the Appellant was the real importer who had used Lakshan Electronics as a dummy and it is on this basis that the duty was s....