TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(b) of the Customs Act 1962 [the Customs Act] 2. The appellant claims to be an individual engaged in the business of commission agency and in real estate activities as a property broker. The appellant claims that he is not engaged in any trading activity, nor had physically handled, stored, transported or dealt with any goods at any point of time 3. Information was received by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence [DGCEI] that M/s New Tech Abrasives Ltd., SEZ, Sector-III, Pithampur [NTAL] had clandestinely removed substantial quantities of M.S. Ingots from their SEZ unit without permission or intimation to the jurisdictional Customs authorities and without payment of applicable customs duty. 4. On the basis of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h he received commission in certain transactions. The appellant further clarified that although certain ledger entries bore his name, the actual receipts and payments were made between the concerned parties, and his name was mentioned only because the transactions were negotiated through him. He also stated that for several entries reflected in the ledger, he had not received any commission at all. The statement also records that the appellant had perused pages 77 to 79 of the said ledger and signed the same in token of having seen the entries. 8. On the basis of the above, the Department alleged that the appellant had accepted the contents of the seized documents and that the same established the sale of ingots by NTAL and purchase of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oboration, cannot form the sole basis for imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act; (iii) It is a settled position of law that penal provisions under section 112(b) of the Customs Act can be invoked only when there is clear, cogent and specific evidence demonstrating conscious knowledge, involvement or abetment in respect of the offending goods. In the present case, the allegation against the appellant is completely bereft of particulars, rendering the very foundation of the charge legally untenable; (iv) The alleged purchase of M.S. Ingots, sought to be fastened upon the appellant solely on the basis of unverified records of NTAL, is based on assumption and presumption. Not a single piece of documenta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Raipur [Excise Appeal No. 51148 of 2020 decided on 01.04.2025]. 18. The impugned order places reliance upon certain ledger entries and computer print-outs of NTAL. These are records of third-party, which neither belong to the appellant nor were maintained by him. These records, in the absence of any independent corroboration, cannot form the basis for imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 19. Penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act could not have been imposed upon the appellant as for imposing penalty two conditions are required to be followed namely, (i) Acquiring possession or being in anyway concerned or dealing with any goods that are liable for....