TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The relevant observation of the learned Tribunal is quoted below. "5.1. It is seen that the role of Shri.R.M.Nagasundaram Proprietor of the appellant has been discussed in para 10 of the SCN at Page 41 of the appeal papers wherein summary of his voluntary statement has been encapsulated. In his voluntary statement recorded on 31.07.2015 by Customs Officer only, Shri R.A.Nagasundaram has stated that he was approached by one Shri R.Suresh to function as CHA to his customers M/s.Sri Sai Enterprises for importing wooden doors from Malaysia and that the invoices, packing list, bill of lading etc., were brought by said Mr.Suresh only, and he used to file the documents online; that after this point, the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout any discussions or findings, that the appellant has committed acts of "Omission and Commission" and actively aided and abetted the main player. Having done this, adjudicating authority goes ahead to confirm the proposals made in the notice and inter alia impose the penalties appealed against. There is no reasoned analysis as to what was the part played by the appellant and how that has resulted in "acts of omission and commission". I do not find any basis for imposition of the penalty for the raison d'etre for the high quantum of the penalty imposed has also not been brought out. Viewed in this context, it is obvious that the adjudicating authority has been unjudicious and preemptory in imposition of the impugned penalty under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urugappan urged before us that the penalty under Section 114AA was rightly set aside by the learned Tribunal, finding that no offence was made out against the Proprietor of the said appellant Company M/s.Premax Logistics, Chennai and the deposition of Shri.R.M.Nagasundaram (Proprietor) and Suresh, were not demolished by any cross examination by the Revenue authorities, but while doing so, the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that penalty is imposable under Section 112(a) which is meant for abetment of the smuggling activities by the concerned persons. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue Mr.S.Rajasekar, however supported the impugned order and submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. The relevant provisions of the Act are q....