TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Customs Act, 1962 by showing in shipping Bill the SSK Controller of Procurement, Naval Dockyard, Lion Gate Mumbai as consignee. Subsequently it revealed that the goods were diverted in local market. The officers recorded statement of Shri Hemant Sheth, Partner of M/s Hi-Tech Engineers wherein he stated that he and Shri Kirit Kamdar were partner in M/s B.K. Industrial Corporation and later on they were running one more firm M/s Hi-Tech Engineers in which Shri Kirit kamdar, Deepak Kamdar and Shri Natwarlal Kamdar were partners. That both firms imported several consignments of parts, spares, equipment etc and they filed Bond Bill of Entries for these imports. That M/s Motiwala was their CHA and Shri Suryakant Motiwala, Partner of said f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Shri P.R. Sheshadri, Storeekeepr in Naval Dockyard has falsely certified that the imported goods were meant for use on Board Indian Naval Ship and has also given receipt on the reverse of the shipping bill without physically receiving and storing the goods in the Naval Stores or supplying them on the Indian navy Ships. Accordingly a show cause notice dt. 12.08.1998 for the period 1989 to March' 1997 were issued to M/s B.K. Industrial Corporation, Shri Kirit Kamdar, Shri Hemant Seth and Shri P.K. Sheshadri. It was proposed to confiscate the goods so diverted, demand of duty on goods so diverted and to impose penalty upon Shri B.K. Industrial Corporation. Further it was proposed to impose penalty upon Shri Kirit Kamdar, Shri Hemant Sheth a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present appeals. 3. Shri Nikhil Rungta, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the adjudicating authority has not considered the submissions made in reply and additional submission. He submits that the concerned authorities of the Navy had provided the receipt of the goods consigned by the Appellant M/s B.K. Industrial Corporation and M/s Hi-Tech which shows that the goods were used for intended purpose in terms of Notification No. 150/94. That there is no other consignee of goods and hence it cannot be said that the goods were diverted. The statements of partners regarding diversion of goods were obtained under threat. They were eligible for benefit of Notification No. 195 - Cus dt. 02.08.1976 as amended for supplies to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....229) ELT 185 (P & H). He also submits that penalty under Section 112 (a) is not imposable as there has been no contravention. That penalty under Section 114 (ii) is not imposable as it is applicable in case of dutiable export goods. 4. Shri Ahibaran, Ld. Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the revenue has carried out extensive investigation. It was found the modus operandi of the Appellants were to get the clearances documents consigned by the Store keeper of Naval Dockyard, Shri P.R. Seshadari who was coming to the gate of Naval Dockyard and certifying the receipt of the goods. It is absurd propositi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribhovandas Motiwala in his statement dt. 24.10.97 has clearly stated that he was sent back from the gate of the Naval Dockyard by Shri Hemant Sheth, Partner of Appellant firm and that he never received the copy of Naval purchase order or procurement order and that he only used to get the signature of Navy dock yard storekeeper on shipping bills. It is also found that the officers during enquiry with the Director General, Naval projects office at Vizag and Commander Works Engineer received letter No. DG/0979/CWE (E) 1/CON/BK/EB dt. 07.1197 giving details of supplies by the Appellant on perusal of which it was found that not in single case any exemption certificate was issued to the Appellant firms. On enquiry with the Indian Coast guard it ....