TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Harshad Vadodaria have preferred the appeals against imposition of penalties under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 whereas Shobha Plastics Private Limited has preferred appeal against appropriation of amounts deposited during investigation. Mr. Harshad Vadodaria is the Director of Shobha Plastics Private Limited. 2. Facts relevant to the matter are that, DRI booked a case as against one Mr. Nalin Mehta, Director of M/s Mehta Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai alleging that he evaded anti-dumping duty on vitrified tiles imported by mis-declaring the country of origin as Malaysia, instead of China. Consequently, three Show Cause Notices viz. SCN No. DRI/AZU/INV/-13/2006 dated 29.11.2007, SCN No. DRI/AZU/INV-14/2006 dated 13.08.2007 and SCN No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue, and vide her Order dated 20.04.2018 imposed the penalty Rs. 10,00,000 on Jayesh Mehta under section 112 (a) of the Act and penalty of Rs. 16,86,880/- on Harshad Vadodaria under section 112 (a) of the Act. As regards, Shobha Plastics the Principal Commissioner ordered appropriation of amounts deposited during investigation against the duty and interest liabilities fixed on Nalin Mehta. It is against this Order dated 20.04.2018 of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeals. 4. Shri Rahul Gajera, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that Commissioner in second round of litigation vide Order dated 19.01.2011 has held Nalin Mehta as the importer of the goods and ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. In view of above, penalty under section 112 (a) imposed upon the present appellants is not sustainable. He further submitted that in any event, impugned order imposed penalty under section 112 (a) of the Act whereas show cause notice proposed penalty under section 112 (b) of the Act. He submitted that imposition of penalty under provision not invoked in show cause notice is bad in law and in this behalf reliance was placed on the following judgements: (a) Amrit Foods vs. Commissioner - 2005 (190) ELT 433 (SC) (b) Noble Moulds Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner - 2010 (259) ELT 228 (Del) (c) CC vs. Prisma Polyfabs Pvt Ltd - 2003 (162) ELT 381 (Tri. Del.) 5. Shri Dinesh M. Prithiani, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his statement that he attended the work of customs clearance as representative of CHA and acted upon the direction of Nalin Mehta. There is no evidence to show that at the time of imports he was aware that goods were allegedly being mis-declared by Nalin Mehta to customs. Harshad Vadodaria has specifically stated in his statement that he was not aware that by using his factory's name and IEC Nalin Mehta and Jayesh Mehta indulged in evasion of anti-dumping duty by mis-declaring the country of origin. There is no other reliable and corroborative evidence to establish that appellants herein had knowledge that goods imported were of Chinese Origin, in that view it cannot be said that appellants herein have committed any act or omission, which ....