TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 when there is no allegation of contravention of any provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Appellant whereas there were specific allegations of contravention of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the co-appellants, whose appeals have been allowed? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that no penalty is imposable under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 only on the ground of telephonic conversation details which is not enough proof for fraud committed by 100% EOU as held by the Tribunal in the same matter in respect of other co-appellants? (c) Whether in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and sale of duty free goods into the local market and also without payment of duty. The above notice also called upon M/s. Mayur Impex to show cause why the above duty free imported fabrics should not be confiscated under Section 111 of the Act. (d) By order dated 24th March 2008, the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs confirmed the show-cause notice dated 13th February, 2004. In the aforesaid order, the Commissioner placed reliance upon the statement made on 4th June, 2003 by the appellant that he had escorted four trucks of imported fabrics to Ulhasnagar for the purposes of clearance in the domestic area and also without payments. In his statement made on 4th June, 2003, the appellant accepted the knowledge of the fact that duty f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was heard separately on 15th September, 2017. The impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner by holding that the appellant had not disputed that he had escorted the truck loaded with the offending goods without payment of duty by M/s. Mayur Impex. Thus, the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs upon him was upheld by the impugned order dated 15th September, 2017 of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Mainkar, learned Counsel in support of the appeal submits as under : (i) the show-cause notice did not allege that the imported fabrics were offending goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act (ii) penalty in respect of other co-noticees i.e. Mr. Govind Khubchandani, Mr. Jairaj Kalyani and Mr. Pawan Lulla had been deleted on th....