2019 (10) TMI 896

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Nandgopal Govind Swami Naidu (aka Gopi Naidu) were importing different Gym equipment through M/s Estelle Impex and were evading customs duty by undervaluation and misdeclaration of the goods. Accordingly business premises of M/s. CNG & Co. and Shrinath Enterprises were searched alongwith the premises of M/s. Telebrands. Different goods worth about 1.80 Cr. were detained at the premises on 18.04.2006 M/s. CNG & Co., M/s. Shrinath Enterprises, M/s. Rico Gems Corporation and M/s. Tele Products on 18.04.2006 and 04.05.2006. Investigation were conducted and show cause notice was issued to M/s. Tele-brands India Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Shrinath Enterprises and were adjudicated vide orders in Original dated 27.11.2012 and 03.12.2012. On the same investiga....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd Rico Gems. The said order was not challenged by the department, hence it attained finality and is binding. Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order imposes penalty under Section 114AA which was introduced w.e.f. 13.07.2006 and was not in existence when the Bill of Entry was filed on 15.05.2006. He further submitted that CESTAT in the case of Bosch chassis E-System India Ltd. 2015 (325) ELT 372 T has struck down penalty under Section 114AA. 3. Learned Authorised Representative for the department has reiterated the findings in the OIO. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the investigation into the impugned case is offshoot of investigation conducted again....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed officer, it is as goods, as submitted to the said investigating officer. Moreover, if at all there is any objection of the department on the said retraction, nothing prevented the department officers to reject the same with cogent reason or to record a counter statement in context with the retraction. WE have seen that no such effort was shown by the department in such situation; the retraction letter cannot be discarded. We are therefore, of the view that statements which were retracted cannot be accepted as evidence. 7.6 The source of the alleged email correspondence with the suppliers is not disclosed. Such email correspondence from undisclosed sources were shown to prakash on 3rd May, 2006 and his confessions were recorded. Howeve....