TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t oriented schemes were made, in respect of the present Appellant, the only allegation was on the ground that because of his active connivance and participation of the Customs staff posted at Tikonia Land Customs Station, the Appellant has prepared fake documents showing fulfillment of Export Obligation in a fraudulent manner. The adjudication Order was passed, vide OIO No. KOL/CUS/COMMISSIONER/PORT/79/2018 dated 30/11/2018 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant makes the following submissions:- (i) M/s Garg Trading Co. ("the Appellant"), is engaged in trading of food grains. (ii) By notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 (Bom)]; • Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Unnayak Prop. [2009 (243) ELT 212 (Tri-Kol)] • Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [2023 (384) ELT 175 (Bom.)], (vi) Section 124 of the Customs Act inter alia states that no order imposing any penalty shall be made unless the person is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing and is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. However, the present order has been passed without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and is erroneous. (vii) As per Impugned Order, personal hearing was scheduled on 09.09.2009 and 22.09.2009 by Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. However, the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ical facts was issued for the same exports by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and was adjudicated in favor of the main Noticee [Para 45.13 @ Pg. 51] has not been considered. Since the demand against the main Noticee has been set-aside and penalty against the Appellant is not warranted. (xii) In respect of the same exports, the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai vide its order dated 29.05.2007, has dropped the demand [Annexure 3 @ Pg. 63 of Appeal] and the issue has attained finality in favour of the main Noticees. Since the SCN pertained to same exports, the matter is settled and Impugned Order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 3. The Order passed by Mumbai Tribunal on the same set of facts against almost all the present A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cee was on 11.7.2009. (b) The Order-in-Original does not clarify as to why the Show Cause Notice was transferred to Call Book in 2010 and as to why it was recalled from there in 2018. (c) While the Adjudicating Authority has cited several fresh dates of Personal Hearings granted, he does not specify as to whether the Hearing Notices got served on the Noticees or not. (d) He has decided the issue on ex-parte basis based on the submissions made before his processor on 11.7.2019. (e) He has not given any finding on the submission made on 11.7.2009 with respect to the same issue being decided by CESTAT, Mumbai. 7. The very first reference about the present Appellant is appearing at Para 38 (Page 21 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant is given at Para 46.13 which reads as under:- 46.13) Further, for their acts of commission and omission, which have rendered the seized goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, M/s. N. S. Overseas, Delhi and its Proprietor Shri Narendra Rastogi, M/s. Rajendra Brothers, Delhi and its Partners Shri Ravindra Rastogi, M/s. Leena Rastogi, Smt. Shakuntala Devi and its executive Shri Narendra Rastogi; Shri Jai Narayan Garg; and Shri S. C. Gupta, Superintendent have rendered themselves liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. As regards the charges against the Departmental officers, the Adjudicating Authority has dropped the proceedings against them h....