TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to them as well as to many other Noticees including one Mr. Ajay Madan alias Jassi alias Ashutosh Birla, Director of M/s. Sam Merchandisers Pvt.Ltd. and also to the present Appellant Shri Anupam Mondal, proprietor of M/s. East India Impex. After due process, the Adjudicating authority rejected the value of the impugned goods, re-determined the value of the impugned goods, rejected the Drawback claimed on the goods exported, ordered recovery of the drawback claim. He also imposed penalties on various Noticees. In respect of the present Noticee, he has imposed penalty of Rs.25.00 Lakhs under section 114(iii) and penalty of Rs.25.00 Lakhs under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. None of the other Noticees have preferred any appeal befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant. 3. Ld. Counsel takes me to Para 41 of the Order-in-Original, wherein the findings about the above issues have been given by the Adjudicating authority. 4. Ld. Counsel submits that the alleged contravention neither calls for penalty under Section 114 nor for any penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. She relies on the case law of M/s. R.S. Arunachalam v. Commissioner of Customs (Tri.-Chennai) and Kailash Bahiru Jadhav v. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), (Tri-Mumbai). In these decisions it has been held that if there are any violations which have occurred, only the provisions of CBLR 2013 can be invoked against the concerned person. 5. The Ld. Counsel also relies on the case law of Jai Balaji Industries v. Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laimed by the exporter in respect of consignments relating to 456 Shipping Bills. From the Show Cause Notice, it is seen that the drawback claims were claimed by M/s.Singh Trading Company and M/s. Sam Merchandisers Pvt.Ltd. prior to 2010 and after April 2010 the goods are being exported in the name of M/s. Cosmos Impex. It is also alleged in the Show Cause Notice that the main person involved in all these exports is Ajay Madan alias Jassi alias Ashutosh Birla. He never appeared when the summons were issued to him, nor any Statement was recorded from him, nor has he come forward to defend the SCN issued to him for such a huge contravention. The present proceedings have been initiated purely based on the interception of 16 Shipping Bills on 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance 440 Shipping Bills, the entire case is built upon the recorded statements only, without any corroborative evidence. It is also seen from the records that the Department could not locate Ajay Madan alias Jassi alias Ashutosh Birla. As could be observed, this person has not made any submission in his defence when the SCN was issued to him. In such a case, the alleged contraventions against the present appellant are confined only to the above referred recorded statement and the findings of the Adjudicating authority without any proper corroboration. On a prima facie basis, no specific material has been brought in by the Revenue to pin the appellant to the alleged contraventions. 13. After considering these factual details, I have gone ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods. In the present instance, at the most, the Revenue could have brought in a proper and specific detail towards contraventions in respect of the 16 live consignments, against the appellant, which has not been done. 15. Therefore, I do not find that any specific case has been made out to impose the penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act 1962, on the appellant. Hence, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii). 16. I also find that there is no allegation that the appellant was responsible for filing of documents. Admittedly, the appellant has not filed any document or signed any document or statement which is false or incorrect in respect of the impugned consignments. The help rendered by him in obtaining the Dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... him, by helping him open a bank account using the said fake identity, by receiving money from him in his bank account and handing it over to Debasis Mukherjee for the purpose of the subject exports of neckties. He is, therefore, liable to penalty under section 114 & section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 19. Therefore, in the absence of any Show Cause Notice being issued seeking to impose penalty under Section 117, Revenue is precluded from raising the issue of penalty under this Section at this stage. Therefore, the prayer by the Ld. AR to impose penalty under Section 117 cannot be entertained. 20. In view of the foregoing, the Appeal stands allowed. The Appellant would be eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law. (....