TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was taken against M/s. Sumira Plastics for diversion of goods imported under DEEC scheme, which were diverted to the domestic market without fulfilment of export obligation as provided for. A show cause notice dated 24-9-2009 was issued to M/s. Sumira Plastics and other co-noticees for the said contravention leading to diversion of goods imported under DEEC scheme. 2.2 Appellant is one of the co-noticees in the entire proceedings and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- as stated in Para 1 has been imposed upon him under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 3.1 I have heard Shri Arun Mehta, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Manoj Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for Revenue. 3.2 Appeals filed by Sumira Plastics, G.N. Pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Authorities as their turnover is below the required limit, that he used to receive the raw materials through tempo loads and he was not aware that the raw materials were imported or not and did not enquire with M/s. Sumira Plastics about the source of raw materials; that he was doing the job work of M/s. Sumira Plastics about till 2006. 3.8.4.2 Thus from the above it is evident that Shri Kumar Sayani, Director of M/s. Harshly Polymers Pvt. Ltd./M/s. Yash Polymers Pvt. Ltd., knew Shri G.N. Pai, years before and carried out the manufacturing of buckets and shutter cones in his said factory. No records/documents for carrying out this manufacturing process were maintained. It clearly indicates that he was well aware of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ob work on the material supplied by M/s. Sumira Plastics. It is nowhere recorded that the appellant had any knowledge with regard to the fact of importation of the goods claiming the benefit under DEEC scheme. Only because the appellant knew Shri G.N. Pai cannot be a reason for claiming that the appellant was in hand in glove for the fraud committed by Shri Pai in diverting the goods imported by him under DEEC scheme. Appellant's company was acting in normal job work activities on the material provided by Shri G.N. Pai. It is not even the case of the Revenue that certain documents or certain evidences have been received showing that the appellant could be attributed with a positive knowledge about the imported nature of the goods. Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest." 3.5 From the above it is evident that positive knowledge or mens rea is an active ingredient for imposition of penalty under Section 112(b). 3.6 Even while granting complete waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal has observed as follows :- "6.1 From the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, it is clearly evident that the appellant did not know that the plastic granules supplied to him for job work purpose was imported under DEEC scheme by M/s. Sumira Plastics. After completing t....