KAMAL ADNANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the orders are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad imposing penalties of Rs. 1 crore on Shri Kamal Adnani and Rs. 60 lakhs on Shri Pankaj Lakhani in terms of Provision of Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. As per facts on record one M/s. Deep Enterprises (Overseas), a 100% EOU filed two bills of entries dated 2 -6 -2000 with the Customs House, Mumbai for clearance of synthetic pile fabrics under claim of duty exemption in terms of Notification No. 53/97 -Cus., dated 3 -6 -1997. As per the investigations conducted by the Revenue the goods imported by said M/s. Deep Overseas were sold in the open market. The proceedings were initiated against M/s. Deep Enterprises along with the appellant, which culminated into an order passed by the Commissioner confirming demand of duty against M/s. Deep Enterprises and imposing penalties. The said M/s. Deep Enterprises is not before us.

(2.) ƒAfter hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri N.D. George and Shri Jignesh Bhagat, learned advocates appearing for the appellant and Shri Sameer Chitkara learned SDR, appearing for the Revenue, we find that Shri Kamal Adnani is son of the owner of M/s. Lotus Trading Company, Dubai who had supplied the raw material to M/s. Deep Enterprises. On going through the relevant paragraphs (40.3 and 40.7) of the impugned order passed by Commissioner, we find that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty on Shri Kamal Adnani on the ground that he was the person in -charge of M/s. Lotus Trading Co., Dubai, who had exported the goods and he had regular business with Shri Arvind Thakkar of M/s. Deep Enterprises and he came to India for helping M/s. Deep Enterprises in clearance of the goods. While dealing with the allegations against Shri Pankaj Lakhani, the adjudicating authority has observed that he helped his brother -in -law Shri Kamal Adnani for clearance of the goods and the fact that he could not get the documents cleared in the first instance due to which the imported fabrics were held up by the customs, should have woken him up to enquire whether everything was alright, but he failed to do so.

(3.) THE evidence discussed by Commissioner is that he has regular business with Shri Arvind Thakkar and dealings were strictly on cash basis. He has admitted to have visited Mumbai to clear the documents relating to the imports. He has failed to counter charge the allegations by any concrete evidence.