Sajjan Kumar Goel vs 1) Cc (Import) Nhavasheva on 26 August, 2019
8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to
M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel
that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause
notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations
culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any
reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up
his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions
the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show
cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this
failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also
challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri
Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity.
Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged
contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing
reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers
Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central
Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12
(P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra
Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani
Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh
[2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533
(P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed
C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011
7
in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to
imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of
the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the
findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of
money having been lent to the other noticees.