GOYAL IMPEX Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) arise out of common order dated 2 -6 -2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal Nos. C/386, 387, 388, 385 and 384 of 2002 -Mum, and the facts and contentions are also common, hence, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment. While admitting the appeal, this Court had vide order dated 11 -7 -2006, formulated following substantial question of law:

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellants in Tax Appeals No. 345 of 2006, 346 of 2006 and 347 of 2006 are engaged in the business of manufacturing of textile articles, whereas the appellants in Tax Appeals No. 348 of 2006 and 349 of 2006 were persons interested in the conduct and business affairs of the appellants in Tax Appeals No. 345 of 2006, 346 of 2006 and 347 of 2006.

(3.) STATEMENTS of one Rajendra V. Rajyaguru, Ex -Director of M/s. Baroda Synthetics Ltd. were recorded on different dates, wherein he had stated that one Himanshu Desai was actively involved in the imports made by M/s. Baroda Synthetics Ltd.; that the export obligation was not completed against the imports of PFY and that bank accounts in Prime Cooperative Bank, Surat, Dena Bank, Ahmedabad, Indian Overseas Bank, Ahmedabad, were being operated under his signature. Statements of Chairman -cum -Managing Director of M/s. BSL were recorded on several dates. He admitted that the goods imported under DEEC licences were sold away and were not used in the manufacture of export product (texturised yam). He also paid a small sum of Rs. 10 lakhs towards duty liability on the goods cleared without payment of duty. He admitted that the goods cleared in the name of M/s. BSL did not reach his factory, nor did he pay for the goods sold on high sea sale basis.