2019 (2) TMI 1573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its partner Sh. Kamal Kishore Parekh and also penalties on Sh. Ashok P Maniyar, Proprietor, M/s. D J Impex under Section 112(a), Section 114 (iii) & Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the allegation and the findings against the appellants are identical, therefore all the three appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a partnership firm M/s. Riddhi Enterprises with Sh. Kamal Kishore Parekh as the main partner and his wife another partner and they are manufacturer of notebooks and other products of printing industry. They export the goods to North and South American countries, M/s. Prakash Offset Printers (M/s. POP), Mangalore, the main noticee approached the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....third party exports' and the export obligation, under the EPCG License of the main noticee, has been fulfilled. They have also stated that the Customs authorities on the basis of valid EODC have cancelled the Bond/Bank Guarantee upon fulfillment of the EPCG License conditions. They have also stated that the duty was paid by the main noticee before the issue of SCN; therefore the appellants are not liable to pay any penalty. After following the due process, the Original Authority imposed penalties under Section 112(a), Section 114(iii) & Section 114AA all under the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed these three appeals. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Ld. Counsel for the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rial evidences have been given, all the documents, acts and omissions done by the appellant before Customs authorities which attracts penal provision of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that EODC issued by the DGFT Authority is valid till date and has neither been cancelled nor withdrawn by the Licensing Authorities/DGFT Authorities. He further submitted that in the absence of any duty demand under the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant or on the main noticee, the Original Authority should not have imposed penalty under various Sections of the Customs Act on the appellant. Further, the Original Authority has traversed beyond the SCN to impose penalty under Section 112(a) inasmuch as there is no role of the appellant made out in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar as various penalties imposed under Section 112(a), Section 114(iii) & Section 114AA all under the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant, M/s. Riddhi Enterprises and its partner, Sh. Kamal Kishore Parekh is concerned, I find that the main notice who has mis-used the EPCG License on the basis of the exports made by the appellant and has also obtained EODC certificate from the DGFT. They have gone to the Settlement Commission and have settled the matter before the Settlement Commission and have paid the liability along with interest. Further, I find that the Original Authority has not considered that once the settlement is permitted by the Settlement Commission by the main notice then can penalties be imposed on the co-noticee who bona fidely ....