TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. This Court's order dated 10 January 2005 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:- "1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned counsel for the Respondent. Both the learned counsel for the Applicants and Respondent have categorically agreed that in view of the larger bench decision of CESTAT dated 12th August, 2005 in Weizmann Ltd. & Anr. Vs. CC (Prev) Mumbai, 2005 (126) ECR 282 decision in favour of the Revenue, all the above applications are required to be allowed. These applications have raised following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether on the facts, circumstances and the evidence available on record, the Tribunal was justified in holding that if the sale proceeds of smuggled goods have c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard to the aforesaid substantial questions of the as expeditiously as possible. All the above applications stand disposed of." 4. By a separate order, in proceedings arising from this matter, the Respondent herein had been directed to furnish a Bank guarantee in an amount of Rs. 26,86,000/- to secure the claims of the Customs Authorities. Despite this Court's order dated 10 January 2005, since the Tribunal failed to send the Statement of the Case to this Court, the Respondent applied for the return of the Bank guarantee. However, this was denied to the Respondent vide the order dated 20 October 2022 made in Writ Petition (L) No. 26651 of 2022. 5. The Respondent, therefore, filed an SLP (C) No. 3534 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pers are traced and the paperbook is complete, and therefore, the matter will have to be finally heard. This matter was then posted on 30 July 2025 for final hearing by retaining its position. 9. Today, we have heard Mr. Mishra for the Customs Department and Mr. Abhishek Adke for the Respondent. 10. As noted above, in our order of 10 January 2005, this Reference was primarily entertained given the decision of the Larger Bench of CESTAT dated 12 August 2005 in Weizmann Limited & Anr. vs. CC (Prev) Mumbai 2005 (126) ECR 282. 11. Today, it was pointed out to us that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Weizmann Limited & Anr. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 499 has reversed the decision of the Full Bench of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, "it appears that nothing remains in the present Statement of Case being filed by the Tribunal as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court dated 10 January 2006 in Customs Application No. 28 of 2001." 14. Mr. Mishra, however, submitted that the decision of this Court in Weizmann Limited (Supra) is distinguishable on the facts. After having secured the order dated 10 January 2005 from this Court by relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Weizmann Limited, we are not too sure whether the Applicant can now seek to distinguish the said decision, purportedly on the ground that it involves some different facts or that it was distinguishable for some other reason. 15. In any event, Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice or in the order of the Commissioner that cites evidence to show the existence of such conducts. The Commissioner cites evidence from the statement of Firoz Batliwala that Nahalchand Lalloochand sometimes issued foreign exchange without verifying the air tickets of the passenger. From this bare sentence alone it is not possible to say that any of the cheques with which we are concerned was issued without proper verification or not or alleges that this was the case, the absence of such verification was deliberate for the reason that moneychanger consciously abetted smuggling of foreign exchange. The fact that Mukesh Himatlal of the firm agreed to pay Firoz Batliwala commission, no doubt in turn for steering applicants for foreign ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how this. In the case of these moneychangers too, there is not a slightest basis for imposition of penalty on them under Section 112. These moneychangers only came to the picture for issue of traveller's cheques for which the payment was made from the accounts operated by Soni and his associates. The notice does not allege any connection "between them and acts retating to such smuggling. Thus, therefore, there is no basis for penalty under Section 112." 17. Admittedly, the Respondent is only a moneychanger, and the allegation was about abetment. Apart from alleging perversity, Mr. Mishra was, however, unable to point out any material, either (Show Cause Notice or O.I.O.), based upon which he could demonstrate that the findings exonera....