Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Relay Shipping Agency Ltd. vs Cc (Export) Nhavasheva on 29 August, 2019
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH
Customs Appeal No. 85460 of 2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 42/2012 dated 30.11.2012 passed
by Commissioner of Customs (Export), JNCH, Nhava Sheva)
M/s. Shubh Fab Tex Appellant
603, Sambhavnath Bldg.,
Shubh Shanti Complex,
R.S. Road, Anjurpatha,
Bhiwandi, Thane 421 303.
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Export) Respondent
Nhava Sheva Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Tal. Uran, Dist. Raigad 407 707.
WITH
(i) 85475 of 2013 (M/s. Albatross Shipping Ltd.); (ii) 85476 of 2013 (Raghavan Nambiar); (iii) 85477 of 2013 (Krishnan Venkatesh); (iv) 85659 of 2013 (Yogesh Ramchandra Adak); (v) 85660 of 2013 (Nityam Khosla); (vi) 85661 of 2013 (M/s. Teamglobal Logistics Pvt. Ltd.); (vii) 85944 of 2013 (Ananda Moorthy); (viii) 85945 of 2013 (M/s. Freight Connection India Pvt. Ltd.); (ix) 85948 of 2013 (Farhad T. Dhotoo); (x) 86164 of 2013 with C/CO/91063 of 2013 (M/s. O.K. Cargo Craft Pvt. Ltd.); (xi) 86260 of 2013 (V. Ramanarayanan); (xii) 86261 of 2013 (Rajesh Kalicharan Mehra); (xiii) 86316 of 2013 (M/s. Warner Industries); and (xiv) 86378 of 2013 (M/s. Relay Shipping Agency Ltd.) (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 42/2012 dated 30.11.2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Export), JNCH, Nhava Sheva) Appearance:
Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Consultant for 1st appellant Shri V.K. Ramabhadran, Sr. Advocate for appellants 2 to 10, 12, 13 & 15 Shri C.M. Sharma, C.A. for appellant 11 Shri Jeetu Motwani, Advocate for appellant 19 Shri A.P. Kothari, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO. A/86506-86520/2019
2 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 Date of Hearing: 07.06.2019 Date of Decision: 29.08.2019 PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA The appeals as detailed in table below are directed against the order in original No 42/2012 dated 30.11.2012 of Commissioner Custom (Export) Nhava Sheva. By the impugned order Commissioner has absolutely confiscated the 25.260 Metric Tons of "Red Sanders Wood Logs"
valued at Rs 2,02,08,000/- mis-declared on the shipping bill No 9296841 dated 27.01.2011 as "Synthetic Filament Yarn other than Sewing Thread Polyester Texturized Yarn"
having value of Rs 8,94,919/- While confiscating the said goods absolutely as these goods are prohibited for exports, Commissioner has imposed penalties as indicated in the table on various person who are appellants before us.
S. Appeal No Appellant Penalty in Rs' Lakhs
N Sectio Sectio Tota
o n n 117 l
114(i)
1 C/85460/2013 Shubh Fab Tex 33 - 33
2 C/85475/2013 Albatross 20 1 21
Shipping Ltd
3 C/85476/2013 Raghavan 10 1 11
Nambiar
4 C/85477/2013 Krishnan 10 1 11
Venkatesh
5 C/85659/2013 Yogesh 10 1 11
Ramchandra
Adak
6 C/85660/2013 Nityam Khosla 10 1 11
7 C/85661/2013 Teamglobal 100 1 101
Logistics Pvt
Ltd
8 C/85944/2013 Ananda 10 1 11
Moorthy
9 C/85945/2013 Freight 100 1 101
Connection
India Pvt Ltd
10 C/85948/2013 Farhad Dholoo 10 1 1
11 C/86164/2013 O K Cargo 33 - 33
Craft Pvt Ltd
12 C/86260/2013 V 10 1 11
Ramanarayana
n
13 C/86261/2013 Rajesh 10 1 11
Kalicaharan
Mehra
14 C/86316/2013 Warner 100 - 100
Industries
3 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 15 C/86378/2013 Relay Shipping 20 1 21 Agency Ltd 16 C/Cross/91063/20 In Appeal C/86164/2013 13 2.1 We have heard Shri A K Prabhakar, Consultant for Appellant 1, Shri V K Ramabhadran, Advocate for Appellants 2 to 10, 12, 13 and 15, Shri C M Sharma, Chartered Accountant for Appellant 11 and Shri Jeetu Motwani, Advocate for Appellant 14. We have also heard Shri A P Kothari, Additional Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the Revenue.
3.1 Commissioner has in para 43 and 46 of his order recorded as follows:
"43. I find that framing of penal charges against the said actual exporters/ owners of the goods has kept reserved by the investigating agency till they are traced and apprehended. Therefore, the show cause notice did not propose penalties against the actual exporters. I acceded to the proposal made in the show cause notice.
46. With regard to Shri Kishor Ghag, Shri Pramod, Shri Deepak and Shri Atul Jadhav and any other person/ firm or company who claim to be the exporters/ owners of the subject goods:
(i) I re-determine the value of the goods (declared as 'synthetic filament yarn other than sewing thread polyester texturised yarn'), covered under shipping bill no 9296841 dated 27.01.2011, of a declared value of Rs 8,94,919/-
and found to be "Red Sanders Wood Logs" of a total net weight of 25,260 metric tons, as Rs 2,02,08,000/- as per the provisions of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 read with section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 for reasons and in the manner described under para 24.1 above and I order absolute confiscation of the said goods under sections 113 (d) and 113(i) of The Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 for reasons given in the foregoing paras.
4 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013
(ii) I order absolute confiscation of the goods, covered under shipping bill No 9214488 dated 04.01.2011, declared as 'synthetic filament yarn other than sewing thread polyester texturised yarn' of a declared FOB value of Rs 8,95,500/- under sections 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992"
Since the order of absolute confiscation of 25.26 Metric Tons of 'Red Sanders Wood Logs' valued at R 2,02,08,000/- sought to be exported by mis-declaring them as 'synthetic filament yarn other than sewing thread polyester texturised yarn' of a declared FOB value of Rs 8,95,500/- against the shipping bill No 9214488 dated 04.01.2011 is not under challenge in appeals before us, nor the actual owners/ exporters of the said goods are not before us we do not pronounce anything in respect of the said portion of order. Any finding recorded in this order may not be construed as in favour of or against the order of Commissioner contained in the said paras.
4.1 Para 29 of Show Cause Notice specifically states as follows:
"29 Framing of penal charges against Shri Kishor Ghag, Shri Pramod, Shri Deepak and Shri Atul Jadhav of M/s Jadhav Freight Forwarders, Shri Sameer Gohil of M/s Central Cargo Express Movers and any other person/ firm or company who claim to be the exporters/ owners and any other person/ firm or company found to be the exporters/ owners of the subject goods are reserved till they are traced; separate show cause notice in this respect will be issued in due course as and when they are traced."
To the same effect are findings recorded by the Commissioner in para 43 of the order referred in para 3.1 above. From the above facts as recorded in show cause notice it is quite evident that the appellants before us are neither the exporters/ owners of the goods absolutely confiscated by the impugned order.
5 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 4.2 Commissioner has in para 40, 41 & 42 of his order has recorded as follows:
"40. The modus operandi followed in this case was that the actual exporters obtained a container from the container service provider and fake invoices were made and signatures & rubber stamps of concerned Central Excise Authorities were forged. The contraband goods were clandestinely stuffed in the container and used the vehicles fitted with false number plates and brought inside the CFS. Once the container was brought inside the CFS, after obtaining Gate Officer's endorsement, the goods were registered and LEO was obtained. By following the same modus operandi, though the past export was consignment was exported vide shipping bill no 9214488 dated 4.1.2011, the present consignment vide shipping bill no 9296841 dated 27.1.2011 was seized before it was exported.
6 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 7 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 8 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 9 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 10 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 11 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 12 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 13 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 14 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 15 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 16 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 17 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 4.3 Section 114 & 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 under which the Commissioner has imposed penalties on the appellants before us are reproduced below:
18 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 SECTION 114. Penalty for attempt to export goods improperly, etc. - Any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable, -
(i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater;
(ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the provisions of section 114A, to a penalty not exceeding ten per cent. of the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is higher:
Provided that where such duty as determined under sub- section (8) of section 28 and the interest payable thereon under section 28AA is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the proper officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent of the penalty so determined;]
(iii) in the case of any other goods, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater.
SECTION 117. Penalties for contravention, etc., not expressly mentioned. -
Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or abets any such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of this Act with which it was his duty to comply, where no express penalty is elsewhere provided for such contravention or failure, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one lakh rupees.
19 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 4.4 Penalties under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962:
From plain reading of Section 114, it is evident that the said section is applicable only in respect of a person who has in relation to any goods omitted to do any act, the omission of which would have rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since in the present case as discussed in para 4.2, we do not find anything ascribed to any of appellant as an act of commission or omission which would have rendered the goods liable for confiscation under section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. In fact M/s Shubh Fab Tex, in whose name the Shipping Bills were filed was not even aware of the fact of filing of the shipping bill by the fraudsters in his name. Not even an iota of evidence has been recorded in the show cause notice or in the impugned order to show/ attribute any knowledge to any of appellants in respect of the fraud being done by the fraudsters, who were involved in the illegal export/ attempt to illegally export the red sanders. The show cause notice and the order in original have proceeded to impose penalties on the appellants not for abetting or for any act of omission or commission leading to confiscation of goods as per section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. Not even investigations reveal that the appellants have not acted in manner expected of them in normal course of business to facilitate the fraud being perpetuated by the fraudsters. In absence of any such charge or finding in the impugned order, that any of appellant has deliberately knowingly or unknowingly assisted in commission of fraud by the fraudsters, we are not in position to uphold the penalties imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. To the same effect view has been taken by the tribunal and High Court in similar circumstances in following decisions.
Bimal Kumar Jain [2004 (177) ELT 389 (T-Mum)] "b) There is no material which could be relied upon of the involvement to extend a remote concert of the 20 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 appellant with the subject exports, especially as regards any act or abetment thereof or to any act or omission which would render the goods liable to confiscation. The appellants alleged acts, about procurement of the exporting firm by purchase from a Chartered Accountant, is not corroborated in any manner in the impugned order as also the alleged knowledge about procurement of the garments. Introduction of Shri Chandragupta established, would only render such abetment & assistance in the realm of 'Preparation to Export' and not 'attempt or successful exports'. "Preparations to Export" is not covered under Section 113(d) which covers 'attempts' and or Section 113(1), which covers "goods entered for exportation under claim for drawback which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under the Act or....." As entry in the case of Exports would, as per Section 2(16) of Customs Act, 1962 would be 'entry' made only on the Shipping Bill filed, under Section 50 of the Act.
No actions, wilful participation or knowledge thereof in this activity, after such an entry was made, under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962, is brought out in the order against the appellant. The penalty under Section 114 of the Custom Act, 1962 as arrived could be therefore not upheld."
IDBI Bank Ltd [2011 (274) ELT 439 (T-Del)]
6. It is seen that the finding against Shri Ravinder is one of carelessness and failure to perform his duties. These might constitute facts to institute departmental proceedings against Shri Ravinder but we are of the view that these facts are not adequate to constitute an offence under Section 114 of the Customs Act. This is because the penalty under Section 114 can be imposed only on a person who in relation to any goods does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render the goods liable to confiscation. There is no evidence forthcoming that Shri Ravinder had handled the impugned goods or even handled documents about which he was aware that 21 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 they related to goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act. So we are of the view that the penalty imposed on Shri Ravinder under Section 114 of the Customs Act is not maintainable.
D S Cargo Service [2009 (247) ELT 769 (T-Del)]
7. We find that penalties were imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act which provides that any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable for penalty. In the present case, there is no material available on record that the appellants did anything or committed anything in connivance or with the knowledge of the exporter. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the imposition of penalties under Section 114 of the Act are not warranted. We are not concerned with the case of the exporter. In any event, there is no material available that the CHA and his employee had any knowledge on the quality, quantity and value of the export goods.
Bharatkumar Bakorbhai Parmar [2008 (231) ELT 30 (Guj)] "6. On the basis of statements of co-noticees and these three respondents and the finding was arrived at by the Commissioner of Custom that these persons have failed to discharge their duties properly and they registered the old vehicles without calling for old documents, without taking the road test and by not making all the entries in the records of registration books. On the basis of these facts, the learned Commissioner of Customs came to be conclusion that lapses/involvement of these persons have been brought out in the forgery of three registration books. It appears that all the three respondents, who are either Clerk, Junior Clerk or Head Clerk have acted at the behest of Shri D.T. Mehta, who is R.T.O Inspector. Since he is the superior authority in hierarchy, they have acted as per his instructions. However, even Commissioner has 22 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 not attributed any motive to these three persons and on the basis of instructions issued by Mr. D.T. Mehta they have acted. The penalty imposed on them by the Commissioner amounting to Rs. 7 lacs, Rs. 9 lacs and Rs. 12 lacs is, therefore, unjustified. The Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter in its order and it was observed by the Tribunal that all the four applicants including Mr. Mehta and present three respondents are employed in the office of Regional Transport Officer, Nadiad. Mr. D.T. Mehta examined the case in question following the application for registration. In the application he has written against the column the year of manufacture 'not known'. The year of the manufacturing was shown in the affidavit of owner. Shri Jagdishbhai P. Parikh, Head Clerk, said in his statement that the year of manufacture was not filled in his register and registration certificate issued was because of the advice received from Mr. D.T. Mehta. Why Mr. Mehta chose to write 'not known' in the application was not satisfactorily explained nor why he could not take steps to ascertain the year of the manufacture. However, the Commissioner's order does not indicate how this would have facilitated the smuggling of the cars. The Tribunal, therefore, observed that the duplicate registration certificate which was presented to the Custom at the time of export showed the year of manufacture to be 1960, 1961 and 1962. However, there is nothing to connect the applicant with these years being shown. The Tribunal further observed with regard to Mr. D.T. Mehta that whether his functioning as a motor vehicle inspector was contrary to the guidelines of his department would not be relevant for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Act unless it can be shown that his acts or omissions were significant and facilitated to the export. Neither of these requirements was satisfied. Since all the three respondents are subordinate to Mr. Mehta, they were duty bound to act as per his instruction. There is nothing on record to show that they have played any active role in facilitating an illegal export 23 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 of Vintage cars. To some extent, the role of Mr. Mehta in this entire transaction is found questionable. For that purpose, we have already issued notice for final disposal in Tax Appeal No. 1975 of 2006. This being the finding of fact by the Tribunal, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and hence all the three Appeals are accordingly dismissed."
Sekar & Sekar Process [2010 (262) ELT 385 (T)]
3. I have heard both sides. The finding of the Commissioner against the appellants is contained in paras 28 to 30 of the impugned order. He has held that the exporters arranged export consignments without even meeting or knowing the credentials or genuineness of Shri Rajkumar. They did not verify the personal details and even accepted advance payment from him. He has held that the change of port and absence of Shri Rajkumar has raised suspicion about the genuineness of the exporters in doing the exports and that their acts of commission and omission indirectly facilitated S/Shri Rajkumar, Suresh and Kumar to indulge in smuggling of red sanders logs. The Commissioner has held that the exporters have been given free hand to arrange the trailer container and CHA handled the goods that reached the Chennai Port, while it was for the exporters to make their own arrangements to avoid this type of exigency and, therefore, the exporters cannot absolve themselves from their responsibilities relating to the export consignments. While I agree with the finding that an exporter cannot absolve himself from his responsibility for the export consignment, this cannot be stretched to hold that exporter is liable to penalty under Section 114 in the absence of any evidence on record to show that any acts of commission or omission on his part rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section
113. The goods were stuffed in the container under the Central Excise supervision and the red sanders logs were substituted en route to the Chennai Port. It is intriguing to find that the seals were not tampered with and they were 24 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 intact at the time of examination of the consignments. The impugned order does not contain any material to conclude that the exporter either knew that the goods were liable to confiscation or did something or omitted to do something which commission or omission tendered the goods liable to confiscation; Therefore, penalty under Section 114 cannot be sustained."
M. Renganathan [2017 (345) ELT 95 (MAD)] "4. The main plea of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department is that the first respondent, while acting as Customs House Agent, has not verified the authenticity of the documents and by such act of negligence, has abetted and aided in the smuggling of the red sander wooden logs, which are prohibited for export, and, therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act is justified.
5. The role played by the first respondent, even as per the finding of the Original Authority, is as under:
51. I find that the custom house agent has not discharged his duty in the normal course of his service. He signed the customs document given by some Shri S.S.Sivakumar for monetary considerations, which paved the way for unauthorized persons access to the customs clearing formalities and enabled unscrupulous persons in facilitating the smuggling of prohibited goods.
6. With regard to the above said finding of the Original Authority, the Tribunal, in the order under challenge, held as under:
4. I find that apart from a vague allegation in para 51 of the impugned order (supra) that the appellant had failed to discharge his functions as a CHA, in the entire order, there is no finding of a positive role of the appellant in the attempt to smuggle out red sander wood logs or the manner in which he abetted the attempt. For failure to discharge functions as a CHA, penalties are provided in the Custom House Agents' Licensing Regulations. In the 25 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 absence of any finding showing that the appellant had abetted the failed effort to smuggle out prohibited red sander wood logs, I find that penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114(i) is not sustainable.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by Shri I.Sahaya Edin Prabhu is allowed.
7. The Tribunal has rendered a categoric finding that there is no finding of a positive role of the first respondent in the attempt to smuggle out red sander wooden logs. Even in the order of the Original Authority, it is held that the custom house agent has not discharged his duty in the normal course of his service. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, for failure to discharge functions as a Custom House Agent, penalties are provided in the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations. Therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act is unwarranted. We, therefore, find no reason to differ with the finding of the Tribunal."
In view of the decisions as above we are not in position to uphold the penalties imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act,1962.
4.5 Penalties under Section 117 of Customs Act ,1962 Commissioner has imposed penalties on some of the appellants as indicated in table in para 1 under Section 117 of Customs Act,1962. From the scheme of Section 114 and Section 117, it is quite evident that penalties under Section 114 and 117 could not have been imposed simultaneously. Penalty under Section 117, could have been imposed only in cases where the Custom Act, do not prescribe for imposition of penalty under any other provision. Once we have set aside the penalties under Section 114, we proceed to examine the penalties imposed under Section 117. In fact the Commissioner in his order have observed that appellants on whom the penalties under section 117 have been imposed were negligent in some manner in fulfilling the statutory responsibilities in 26 C/85460,85475,85476,85477,85659,85660,85661, 85944,85945,85948,86164,86260,86261,86316,86378/2013 the manner in they should have been done. They could have been more careful in respect of their clients/ customers so that such frauds could have been prevented. In our view the penalties imposed under is necessary to deter appellants and signal to them to be more careful while conducting their business in relation to imports and exports of goods. However in our view the end of justice will be met if the penalties of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs) imposed by Commissioner under Section 117, is reduced to Rs 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only.) 5.1 In view of discussions as above i. Appeal No C/85460, 86164 & 86316/2013 filed by the appellants on whom only penalty under Section 114(i) has been imposed are allowed.
ii. Appeal No C/85475, 85476, 85477, 85659, 85660, 85661, 85944, 85945, 85948, 86260, 86261 & 86378/2013 filed by the appellants on whom penalty both under Section 114(i) and 117 have been imposed are allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 114(i) and reducing the penalties imposed under Section 117 to Rs 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). iii. Cross objection C/Cross/91063/2013 in Appeal No C/86164/2013 is disposed accordingly.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 29.08.2019) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (Sanjiv Srivastava) Member (Technical) tvu