TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8th April, 2024 (hereinafter, the Impugned Order) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, CESTAT). 3. The impugned order is a common order passed in two Customs Appeals before the CESTAT being C/51578/2018 titled Umesh Kumar v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and C/51595/2016 titled Rajat Arora v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. 4. The origin of this case goes back to when the Bill of Entry No.6807339 was filed on 18th September, 2014 by one M/s Aromatech which is a sole proprietary concern of the Appellant- Mr. Umesh Kumar, as the importer of certain goods (hereinafter 'the said goods'). The Customs Department, upon examination, realized that the said goods were in exces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is further submitted by Mr Gandhi that though an application for provisional release of goods in issue, has already been filed, the petitioner will file a fresh application by Monday, i.e., 02.02.2015. In the event such an application is filed, the same will be actioned by the concerned officer. I am told, the Deputy Commissioner, Customs is authorized to deal with such like applications. An order on the application for provisional release will be passed within ten days of the petitioner appearing before the concerned authority. Mr Gandhi, at this stage, says that once an order for provisional release of goods is passed, the writ petition would have worked itself out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dispos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Impugned Order. Before CESTAT, Mr. Umesh Kumar tried to completely wash his hands off the imports by alleging that it was Mr. Rajat Arora alone who had been instrumental in the whole process of imports which he himself had only lent his IEC number to Mr. Rajat Arora. Such averment was completely rejected by the CESTAT in the Impugned Order in the following terms: "15. The prayer of Umesh Kumar before us in this appeal is to set aside the impugned denovo OIO dated 4.1.2018. The main contention of Umesh Kumar is that he had only lent his IEC to Rajat Arora and was in no way concerned with the imports at all and therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside. The specific grounds listed in the appeal are: (a) The impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation of two witnesses was not granted which was not appreciated by CESTAT. In addition, in respect of the past goods, the Appellant was entitled to an exemption. However, the same was also not granted. 15. On behalf of the Respondent, it is submitted that the entire transaction was itself completely shrouded in fraud. In fact, there is a clear intention on part of theAppellant to evade the payment of customs duty. Even VAT returns have been filed as NIL by the Appellant. 16. The Court has heard the Counsels for the parties. 17. The Order-in-Original dated 24th February, 2016, which was challenged before the CESTAT, has clearly valued the goods as also imposed penalty as under: "ORDER In view of the above findings, I p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I impose penalty of Rs. 61,65,224/- under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s Aromatech for the duty short paid by reason of collusion/wilful misstatement/ suppression of facts for their various acts of omission and commission as detailed above. vii) I impose penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/ - (Rupees ten lakhs only) on Sh. Rajat Arora under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 18. This order was challenged before the CESTAT and the CESTAT has come to the conclusion that the Order-in-Original is liable to be upheld. Relevant portion of the Impugned Order dated 8th April, 2024, of the CESTAT reads as under: "41. In this factual matrix, the conclusion in impugned OIO is that M/s. Aromatech had mis-declared the impo....