Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sanjay Suryani Patyani vs Commissioner Of Customs (Adj) on 29 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II APPEAL No.C/679 to 681/02 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.DRI/BZU/B/31/98 dated 19/03/2002 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Adj.), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Sanjay Suryani Patyani Rushinath Kasiram Patyani Appellants Suresh Maruti Chandiwade Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj), Respondent Mumbai Appearance:
Shri.K.A Suleman, Advocate for appellant Shri.S.J. Sahu, Asst. Comm. (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 29/08/2016 Date of Decision : /09/2016 ORDER NO Per: Raju
1. The appellants, namely, Shri Sanjay Suryaji Patyani, Shri Suresh Maruti Chandiwade and Shri Rushinath Kasiram Patyani were penalized for their role in duty evasion involving six other persons. Six other persons were also penalized. However, no appeals have been filed by them. Duty has been demanded without specifying the persons from whom it is to be recovered. The case involved forgery of documents and clandestine clearance of electrical apparatus from the customs.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that they are small people who worked as assistant/clerk in the office of the CHA. They are not the importers of the goods nor they are the financiers. They have not benefitted in any manner from the act. The only allegation is that they have helped in the said evasion and the forgery of documents. He argued that no prosecution has been lodged against them and no charge-sheet has been filed by the Crime Branch of Police and now more than sixteen years were passed. The learned Counsel pleaded for leniency.
3. The learned AR relies on the impugned order.
4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the appellants were clerk/assistants in the office of the CHA and have indeed played a role in the clandestine clearance/forgery of the documents. The learned Counsel has pleaded that the appellants are not beneficiaries of any of the rewards of the said activities of clandestine clearance. Looking at the facts of the case and the status of the appellants, it is felt that the penalty of Rs.2.00 lakhs each is harsh. The penalty is revised from Rs.2.00 lakhs each to Rs.50,000/- each. The appeal is partially allowed in above terms.
(Pronounced in Court on .) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (Raju) Member (Technical) pj 1 3 Appeal No.C/679 to 681/02