TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (Appeals), Kolkata, wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed on Piyush Kumar Bhura (hereinafter referred as the appellant) and other adverse directions against the appellant in the Order-in-Original dated 08.02.2018. In the said Order-in-Original dated, 08.02.2018, the Ld. adjudicating authority has in addition to imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-, also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, inter alia on the appellant, under Sections 114 and 132 of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively, and ordered for initiating action for cancellation of the IEC of the appellant's company, in relation to an alleged attempted fraudulent export of vegetable seeds via Petrapole LCS in November, 2012. 2. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n with the appellant; no witness implicates the appellant or attributes to him any act of orchestration or export-related instruction. He submits that the named supplier of documents and goods, one Pritam Jaiswal was neither traced, interrogated, or made a noticee in the subject adjudication by the Department, and instead the appellant Director was self-servingly alleged and described by the respondent authorities to be the "mastermind" without any factual or legal basis whatsoever. 2.3. Furthermore, the appellant points out that the actual chain of custody traces the consignment to a third party, Shri Pritam Jaiswal, who was never traced or made a notice; that the accountant, Amit Kumar Jha in his lone statement, purported to recognize ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risdiction to impose any fine under this provision and hence the fine imposed is not sustainable. 2.8. The appellant submits that the proposal to cancel the IEC of M/s Siddhi Edibles Pvt. Ltd., without making the company a noticee or affording it an opportunity to be heard is a manifest violation of due process and liable to be struck down. 2.9. In view of the complete absence of evidence, failure to adhere to due process, and the speculative and unsubstantiated nature of findings recorded against the appellant, the appellant prayed that the impugned orders be set aside in toto and the appeal be allowed. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue has reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard bot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is IEC code for the alleged attempted export. The Department has failed to bring in any evidence to substantiate their claim of direct or indirect involvement of the appellant in the alleged attempted export. 5.2. The entire case against the appellant rests on a statement of a co-accused, who was a former accountant of the appellant's company, Shri Amit Kumar Jha. From the perusal of the said statement, we observe that Shri Amit Kumar Jha has not implicated the appellant, but named another Director, Gopal Chandra Bhura, who was neither summoned nor made a party. We also observe that the appellant's request to cross-examine Mr. Jha was denied. As the statement of Shri Amit Kumar Jha has not been corroborated by any other independent evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding the fraud and forgery alleged to have taken place in respect of the export. 5.4. We also find that the impugned proceedings against the appellant are vitiated by denial of crossexamination, non-supply of relied upon documents (RUDs), and complete absence of forensic corroboration linking the appellant to the impugned documents. We hold that these failures constitute gross violations of the principles of natural justice. 5.5. Accordingly, we hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the alleged offence of attempted export and hence we set aside the same. 6. Regarding imposition of fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962, we find that the ld. adj....