TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. PDS Legal. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra i/b. Mr. Padmakar Patkar. P.C. 1. These appeals have been filed impugning an order dated 19th May 2017 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane and dismissing appellant's appeal. 2. Appellant in CUAPP No. 11 of 2020 is a Director ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods that were not in conformity with the permission granted under the foreign trade policy and hence goods were liable for confiscation as ordered by adjudicating authority and to duties thereto. Penalty was also imposed on various parties including appellants. Appellants were saddled with penalty as an abettor. 5. Mr. Sanghavi submitted that there is a finding of fact that Suprapti did not have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the imported goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962? (C) Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty on the Appellant by a cryptic and non-speaking order and without considering any of the submissions of the Appellant and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ea Basis) were very much aware of and has actively colluded in the scheme to manipulate the law by contravening the permissions by feigning the manufacturing activity on imported raw material which actually was final product and, therefore, Vishal Exports Overseas Limited and Mr. Pradeep Mehta, its director, cannot be considered as innocent purchasers. The Commissioner has also given a finding of ....