TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18 and Civil Misc. Application No. 42126 of 2018 vide order dated 12.08.2025 wherein it has been ordered as follows: "6. In this appeal, on 10th May 2022, both the ld. Counsels for the parties had submitted that the matter ought to await the decision in Canon-II. Now that the said decision has been pronounced by the Supreme Court, the present appeal deserves to be remanded back for fresh consideration by the CESTAT. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The order of the CESTAT is set aside. The appeal of the appellant being C/52204/2015 titled Shri Awtar Singh Bedi Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi-II is restored to its original number before CESTAT." 2. Pursuant thereto the appeal is again before this Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....detailed investigations were taken up. 2.2 The salient points of the modus operandi unearthed by the DRI are summarised below: (i) The Bills of Entry were filed by Shri Tapasvi Singh (CHA) as per the discussions he had with Shri Avtar Singh Bedi who approached him and handed over import related documents. Without verification of genuineness of the importer, the Bills of Entry were filed on the basis of understanding that CHA will be paid double the amount normally charged from clients for facilitating mis-declaration qua both the containers. (ii) Shri Ajay Sharma, Abhishek Dua as well as Shamit Bhasin joined together and schemed to import prohibited/ restricted goods through dubious means by enticing certain persons thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receiving Rs.10 lakh. 2.3 During the course of investigation (which comprised of declared as well as undeclared goods) which were used to conceal R-22 were valued on the basis of market inquiry. The assessable value was arrived after permitting allowable deductions from the market price. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice [SCN] bearing No. 46/2012 dated 19.12.2012 was served upon the appellant. 2.4 The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order has ordered as follows: (1) R-22 gas cylinders were ordered for absolute confiscation, (2) The assessable value of goods (other than R-22 cylinders) - both declared and undeclared - were redetermined and such goods were ordered for confiscation but allowed for redemption o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made, nor signed, used or caused to be made any declaration, document during the course of 'business under the Act' and, therefore, the provisions of the Section 114AA cannot be invoked against him. The alleged participation of the appellant was not "in the course of business under the Act." 4.2 The appellant relied upon the decision in the case of M/s Achiever International Vs. CCE [2011 (268) ELT 94 (Tri.-Del.)] wherein para 4.5 of the judgment, the Tribunal held that : "At any rate there is no justification for separate penalties under Sections 112A and 114AA." 4.3 The adjudicating authority has gone beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice by imposing separate penalties under Sections 112A and 114AA and has thus violate....