TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Indore [the Commissioner] that imposes a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs upon it under section 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 [the Customs Act] 2. Customs Appeal No. 52748 of 2019 has been filed by the Metal Kraft Engineers to assail that portion of the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner that imposes a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs upon it under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 3. Metal Forger and Fabricators and Metal Kraft Engineers shall be referred to as the appellants. 4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and fabrication of automobile components & parts of agricultural equipments such as submersible pumps. During the period from 2008-09, the appellants supplied fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiple letters requesting for supply of the relied upon documents. The appellants also filed submissions contesting the allegations made in the show cause notice. By letters dated 25.09.2012 and 20.09.2012 the appellants pointed out that the show cause notice was received without any appendix. It was also clarified that there were no purchase transactions of ingots/gits/shots or any other goods between the appellants and NTAL. 8. By a letter dated 19.09.2013, the appellants once again requested the Commissioner to provide copies of the relied upon documents that had not been received with the show cause notice. 9. Pursuant to the request of the appellants, the statement of Nitin Bhide was provided by the department. Several of the reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filing. It was also pointed out that the appellants had not purchased goods without payment of duty, and neither had they acquired possession, nor in any manner were they concerned with carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing any goods which they had the knowledge or reason to believe had been improperly imported. It was also pointed out that the copy of the ledger shown to Bhide was maintained by NTAL and was seized from the premise of a third party and not from the premise of the appellants. Ledger copy maintained by NTAL matches with the other documents seized from the premises of NTAL only and not with other independent evidences. Thus, in the absence of any other independent corroborative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the correct factual position; (ii) No penalty can be imposed on the appellants under section 112(b) of the Customs Act; and (iii) The impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 15. Shri Ajay Jain, learned special counsel appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that it does not call for any interference in these two appeals. Learned special counsel also submitted that penalties under section 112(b) of the Customs Act were correctly imposed on the appellants and that the principles of natural justice had not been violated. 16. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned special counsel appearing fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t had not been followed. This is what was also held by the Tribunal in M/s Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Raipur [Excise Appeal No. 51148 of 2020 decided on 01.04.2025] 19. Penalty, therefore, under section 112(b) of the Customs Act could not have been imposed upon the appellants 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 confiscation; and (ii) Knowledge or belief about such goods being liable for confiscation. 20. The aforesaid two conditions are not satisfied in the present case. The appellants had not purchased/imported the goods from NTAL and, therefore, the ....