TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CESTAT was right in setting aside the penalty against the Respondent herein without assigning any reason for the same? Whether the CESTAT, being last fact finding authority, has passed reasoned and speaking order, considering the materials on record and findings arrived at in the Order passed by Adjudicating Authority?" 2. The appeal is filed against the Director of the Company Aditya Arunkumar Bhuwania for quashing of penalty by the Tribunal. 3. Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act is maintainable on substantial questions of law. The Tribunal in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 have given reasons and have allowed the appeal of the company. The said paragraphs read as under :- 7. The value declared itself is not in doubt. The stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Customs Act, 1962. In these circumstances, the motive distances itself from the method and without motive there can be no offence. Learned Counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner v. Fact Paper Mill Ltd [2015 (322) ELT 283 (Guj.)] to highlight the failure of the adjudicating authority in dealing with the retraction even if not in compliance with the various judicial rulings on the subject; that there was a retraction should suffice for the adjudicating authority to render a ruling on its acceptance or otherwise. Learned Authorised Representative relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin [1997 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er evidence cannot be ignored. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in Sidhharth Shankar Roy v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2013 (291) ELT 244 (Tri.- Mumbai)], Learned Authorised Representative contends that retraction of statement is not in conformity with the test prescribed therein and must be rejected. The circumstances in which the statement of the appellant therein were accorded special importance is no template for the present dispute. It is also the contention of the Learned Authorised Representative that substantive difference between section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 has been commented upon in Associated Cement Companies Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (2001 (128) ELT 21 (SC)] to ....