Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yes vs Represented By : Shri Aakash Modi, ... on 21 November, 2014
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : C/10249,10250,10417/2013 Arising out of : OIO-KDL-COMMR-26-2012-13 dt. 24.9.2012, OIO-KDL- COMMR-29-2012-13 dated 25.09.2012 and OIO-KDL- COMMR-37-2012-13 dated 07.11.2012 Passed by : Commissioner of Customs, Kandla For approval and signature : Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Appellant (s) : Shri Prakash Charia Represented by : Shri Aakash Modi, Advocate Respondent (s) : Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Represented by : Shri K. Sivakumar, A.R. CORAM :
Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 21.11.2014 ORDER No. A/12185-12187/2014 Dated 21.11.2014 Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;
These appeals have been filed by the appellant against three separate orders-in-original passed by the same adjudicating authority. As the issue involved in these appeals is the same, therefore, all of them are being taken up for disposal under this common order.
2. Shri Aakash Modi (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellants is covered by order No. A/11007 to 11063/WZB/AHD/2013 dated 05.8.2013 passed by this bench. It was strongly argued by the learned advocate that as per Para 12.6, 13 (viii) and 25 of the OIO No. KDL/Commr/20/2012-13 dated 24.9.2012, the facts of the case are same what were involved in the case decided by CESTAT in its order dated 05.8.2013 and that the role attributed to the appellant does not attract penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Shri K. Sivakuamr (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the Adjudicating authority that this appellant was actively involved in tempering and dealing of the forged licenses.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed that facts of these appeals are identical to the facts involved before us in the case of appeals decided under order No. A/11007 to 11063/WZB/AHD/2013 dated 05.8.2013 in the case of Rajkumar Kunder & Others vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla.. Further the statements of Shri Prakash Charia only indicate that he was a broker dealing in licenses and that he did not have addresses of the persons from whom he has purchased forged licenses. Adjudicating authority also observed that appellant was not co-operative during investigation. These activities attributed to the appellant could be punishable by DGFT under the Import and Export Policy provisions or under the Indian Penal Code but the same can not be valid grounds for imposing penalties upon the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The present appeals are thus covered by our earlier order dated 05.8.2013.
5. Based upon the above observations appeals filed by the appellant are allowed.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court) (H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL 3