2008 (8) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner No. 29/05 dated 11-4-2005 insofar as the same relates to imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a) The appellant joined as a steno ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. (c) Commissioner ordered recovery of the drawback paid to the above firms under Rule 16 and 16A of Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules. He also imposed Rs.10 lakhs on the present appellant. (d) The present appellant has appealed against the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on her, 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is merely an employee of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des and also perused the relevant records. In her voluntary statement dated 28-5-03, she has given many details on entire activities starting from procurement of goods, export of the same and the accounts in which drawback amounts were received. The statement has not been retracted. These clearly prove her knowledge about the illegal activities undertaken in respect of exports of M/s. L.D. Impex a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith her as proprietor. Her claim that she was merely a steno typist at a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month and not an exporter and that she was forced to follow the orders of her employer cannot be accepted. Her claim that she has not received any monetary consideration for knowingly lending her name to start a firm, opening bank accounts in her name, obtaining IE code, etc. is unbelievable. At any ....
TaxTMI