TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacture and export Cocoa Butter, Cocoa power etc. Based on intelligence that respondents have diverted and mis-utilized the material imported duty free under the DEEC scheme, officers of the Preventive Unit visited the premises of the respondent-company on 12.02.1996 and recovered documents. On scrutiny of records as well as verification of physical stock of the material in the factory premises, it was revealed that the company had imported entire quantity of material duty free permitted under the said licenses who had fulfilled only part of the export obligation. It was also noticed that no material imported duty free was physically available in the balance stock so as to enable them to fulfil the remaining export obligations. Thus it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent to be heard. The Tribunal had set aside the penalty imposed on the Managing Director, Shri Bhadrinarayana of the respondent company on the ground that when the main offender, the respondent company was not penalized, a person cannot be held to have abetted the commission or omission of the assessee to be liable to pay penalty. 2. As per the directions of the Tribunal, the Commissioner adjudicated de novo adjudication and dropped duty demand and the entire proceedings. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now before the Tribunal. 3. On behalf of Revenue, Ld. A.R Shri A. Cletus appeared and reiterated the grounds of appeal. He submitted that since the JDGFT, Hyderabad has given certificates of fulfilment of export obligation, the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specific direction to take cognisance of the EODCs furnished by the respondent. The Commissioner has rightly dropped the proceedings. It is also pointed out by the Ld. counsel that Tribunal which set aside the penalty imposed on the Managing Director, Shri Bhadrinarayana on the ground that when no penalty is imposed on the respondent- company, the penalty imposed on the M.D. alleging him to be an abettor is not sustainable. The department has not filed any appeal in the first round of litigation against the non-imposition of penalty on the respondent-company. The Tribunal having set aside the penalty, the Revenue is now stopped from contending that the respondent-company and the Managing Director are liable to pay penalty. 5. Heard both s....