TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g a bike near gate of Surat SEZ and found him carrying 66 gold bars totally weighing 8069.63 grams, which was being taken to M/s Choksi Vachhraj Makanji (CVM) in exchange of ornaments and jewellery brought from them by the SEZ Unit. Certain gems and stones were also recovered from him in polythene zipper bag. The 22 carat gold bars (weighing 8069.30 grams) and diamonds/ precious stones/ moti (weighing 3064.22 carats) were seized under a Panchnama and deposited with the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, surat. The statement of Sh. Kantibhai J Jadav (Employee of M/s CVM) and Shri Chetan Trambadia were recorded by DRI Officers when both explained that ornaments and jewellery produced by M/s Choksi Vachhraj Makanji were brought to SEZ Unit of M/s D. Jewel for being exported and gold bars were being transferred to M/s Choksi Vachhraj Makanji in exchange because of urgency in delivering the goods to UAE based buyers. The DRI Officers have also recorded the statement of Sh. Dipak Dholakia (Partner of M/s Choksi Vachhraj Makanji), who also explained the above facts and circumstances. He further submits that statements of a Sh. Dipak Dholkia, Sh. Kirit Vadia and Sh. Chetan Trambadia were reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....large stocks of ornaments were lying with M/s Choksi Vachhraj Makanji. Accordingly, 8676.553 grams of gold jewellery was brought to SEZ Unit of M/s D. Jewel from Ms/ Choksi Vachhraj Makanji and this jewellery was recorded in the registers of M/s D. Jewel. He submits that only lapse on the part of appellant M/s D. Jewel is that they have not followed the procedure for bringing the goods in SEZ Unit. He submits that Rule 41 of SEZ Rules allows the Unit to send materials and inputs outside the SEZ for job work and fully produced goods were also allowed to be brought in the SEZ Unit by following the procedure, therefore, the transaction is allowed under the law, but due to urgency, the appellant have not followed the procedure as set out in the Rules. Since appellant were in urgency of export of goods, which has been explained by various persons whose statements were recorded, there were only technical and procedural infections but there were no malafide intention. As regard the appeals filed by the partners of M/s D. Jewel and M/s Choksi Vachhraj Makanji, he submits that the goods in question is not prohibited goods as there is no prohibition nor any restriction in delivering any good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty for partner of the partnership firm. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments: Omkar Jewellers Vs. CC, Delhi 2014 (312) ELT 776 (Tri. Del) CC, Chennai Vs. Shri Venkateswara Enterprise 2014 (310) ELT 433 (Mad.) Yakub Ibrahim Yusuf Vs. CC, Mumbai 2011 (263) ELT 685 (Tri.Mum) DJP International Vs. Commnr. 2017 (350) ELT A65 (SC) Nanalal k Jain Vs. CC (Preventive Mumbai) 2000 (124) ELT 401 (Tribunal) CCE, Vs. Jai Prakash Motwani 2010 (258) ELT 204 (Guj.) Pravin N Shah Vs. CESTAT 2014 (305) ELT 480 (Guj.) Vinod Kumar Vs. CCE, Delhi-l 2006 (199) ELT 705 (Tri.Del.) R.K. Ispat Udyog Vs. CCE, Raipur 2007 (211) ELT 460 (Tri.Del.) 4. On the other hand, Sh. L. Patra Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that since gold bars imported duty free in the SEZ Unit were cleared from SEZ Unit without following the procedure for payment of duty, the same is amounting to smuggling of gold bars, therefore, there provision have been violated of the Customs Act, also restriction imposed by Reserve Bank Of India inasmuch as the goods imported in SEZ Unit is only meant for exports and if it all, it is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntention as almost equal quantity of gold jewellery were brought to SEZ Unit of D. Jewel, therefore, the quantity of gold cleared to Choksi Vachhraj Makanji was adjusted by bringing gold jewellery in their SEZ Unit. We are of the view that in respect of any conclusion made by D. Jewel and Choksi Vachhraj Makanji, the facts is not disputed that both the transaction are illegal in the law, hence there is clear violation of provision of SEZ Act, RBI guideline and Customs Act. In these undisputed facts, the appellant could not get any relief only by mentioning the commercial reason, if the excuses given by the appellant is accepted it would lead the situation whereby giving any excuse whole scheme of SEZ can be planted. 6. As regard the penalty imposed on the partner of partnership firm, we find that there are contrary judgments cited by both the sides on the issue that when penalty is imposed on the partnership firm whether the separate penalty can be imposed on the partner of partnership firm. On analyzing all the judgments, we find that Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE, Vs. Jai Prakash Motwani (Supra) categorically held that when the penalty on partne....