Jagmohan Singh v. Commissioner of Central Excise Adjudication

order of the Tribrlnal. . B. lt is also mentioned that on 29.8.2001 after the statement was recorded, the appellant had stopped appearing. The Department had filed a complaint against him in the Court of learned ACMM, Patiala House but he did not respond to various summons issued against him. and did not appegr to give evidence. Therefore, non-bailable warrdnts were iss'ued against him and he was declared proclaimed offender. However, .the appellant has now started appearing in those proceedings.

¶9On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, which specifically concern the appellant and other material evidence on record, the Tribunal recorded its finding in paras 75 & 76 inthe following manner; "75. Factual matrix depicted and relevant as well as paterial facts and evidence noticed hereinbefore havinq given rise to investigation followed by pverseas enquiry proved questionable conduct of appellants. Extensive enquiry was done to ascertain various aspects including indentify of the suppliers of Microphone and Fuel Pump'Diaphragm, The persons involved in the export tendered evidence proving various circumstances leading to export of overvalued goods. Oral evidence tendered was well t iCus, A.A. Nos, 1/2011, 2 /20L1 &3 /20L1 , , I @ corroborated by directed and circumstantial evidence' Close association of various persons and their active involveme,nt made the export successful endangering Revenue. Abetment and connivance of the conduits facilitated export causing loss to Reveni:e. Oral evidence gathered remained unrebutted. lntimate and close nexus of each other became patent from the modus operandi by the exporters with the conscious knowledge and deliberate intention to l,et export the overvalued goods.

¶76Deceitful commitment surfaced with echoed evidence against the exporters and abettors. lll designed racket came to tight by lnvestigation. There was no fault found with investigation anO process of investigation remained unchallenged except baseless pleas of violation of natural justice and flimsy plea of retraction of evidence when result of ill design brought the associates to the ,grp,Ve of offence committed under lqw and confessional were rniel'l corroborated. Acts of the appellants called for their trial iA criminal'court for which complaint was also filed'by revenue. Nothing came orjt to the rescue of the appellants in absence of their bonafide. Series of acts of appellant and chain of evidence gathered by investigation proved ill intent and close association of exporterg with the abettors. No circumstantial or direct evidence was led to show that the investigation was perverse. Consequence of follow up enquiry and substantial as w.ell as material and relevant evidence were very well available on record speaking against the appellant to level charge against them through Show Cause Notice. Weighty and credential evidence available on record were sufficient enough to hold all acts of the appellants to be detrimental to the interest of. Revenue' Adjudication does not appear to have suffered from any of the legal infirmities and cannot be faulted,"

¶10lt is, thus, clear that the Tribunal has come to a specifjc finding that the appellant herein had issued airway bills; he had acted as an agent of the 5 concerns which were owned by Sh: Tejwant Singh; he played his role on specific instructions of Sh. Tejwbnt Singh; and he was dealing with the Customs Officers in respect of export of these tcus. A.A. Nos. 1/201 1,2/2011 &3 /2011' Page 7 of B t_ very goods. The Tribunal is thus categorical that the connected with the procurement of the goods by the there were other statements and sufficient material to appellant was exporters and implicate the appella nt.

¶11We, thus, find no merit in these appeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed alongwith pending applications' \ ; APRIL 27, zgLL KA v' M.!-, MEE-[Tl\, J. [Cus. A.A. Nos. 1"/2011',2/20L1, &3/201I Page B of B

7, * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + PRONOU NCED ON= 27 .4.2OLL CUSAA No.2l2OLL & C.M. No. ISOL|?OLL CUSAA No. 3/2OLL & C.M. No. L5O4|?OLL JAGMOHAN SINGH . . . APPELLANT throuoh : Mr. Navneet Panwar, counsel for the appellant. VERSUS COM M ISSION ER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (Adj ud ication) . . . RESPONDENT throuqh: Mr. Mukesh Anand with Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria and Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, counsel for the respondent. CORAM :- HON',BLE MR. JUSTTCE A.K. S|KRI HON',BLE MR. JUSTTCE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SlKRl, l. (ORAL) For orders, see CUSAA No.1 of 2011. ,fr"f A.K. StKRt, J. 4-r-, e, M.L. MEHTA, J. APRIL. 27, 2OLLIKA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. o . [N T't-tE E-t[Gl-i co[.sRT oF DE[-[-il[ AT NIEW DEI-l'll PROhIO{..!NCED OFd: 27 "4.2ALL ' CtlSAA [\[o. X./201n & C.M" No" n499/20LL' CIJSAA No. 2/2OX.X. & C"M" NIo. tr 50Ll2@L1. ,qriSAA [So. 3/203.n & C.M' hlo. X.SO4/2OL1" rJJAGMOHANSINGH ..APPELLANT throuqh : Mr. Navneet Panwar, counsel for the appella nt. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (Adjudication) r . ' RESPONDENT rL throuqh: Mr. Mukesh Anand with Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria and Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, counsel for the resPondent: C0RAM :-- !-{ow'tsLE MR. J[.[sT!CE A.K. sIKRI F{ON',EI-E MR..Jq,JsTlCE M.L, MEI-l]rA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? V 4\,K-5lKR[, fl " (ORAL) The appellant has preferred these appeals against tfie Final Order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax .Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) whereby his appeal before the CESTAT [Cus. A.A. Nos. 1/201\,2/20L1, &3/201J Page L of B ,l + r arising out of the Order-in-original dated 30.9,2005 has been dismissed. By that Order-in-original, the appellant was imposecl with penalty of t 20 lacs under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Before : inflicting this penalty, a show-cause notice dated 30.72.2003 was issued to him in respect of such an export effected by M/s Unicorn lndustries, G-22llA, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and certain acts of commission and'omission were imputed against the appellant as well. The aforesaid penalty has been sustained by,the impugned order. 2. In this appeal, the challenge to the order of the Tribunal is on the ground that though the Tribunal has specifically taken note of the statements made by the appellant in para 28 of the impugned order but the statements are not dealt with and no conclusions/findings are arrived.at by the CESTAT qua the appellant, lt is argued that by the impugned order, 17 appeals were decided and it appears that OV in advertence, omissions or otherwise, the case of the appellant had not been examined before dismissing his appeal. 3. In para 28 of the impugned order, following statements made by the appellant are noted: "it was submitted on behalf of the Appellant Sri Jagmohan , Singh that the statement recorded from him on 15.10.2001 being under force and coercion as well as physical torture was retracted on 16.10.2001, nothing implicates the appellant to charges. The Appellant being merely engaged in issuance of Airway Bills through M/s Bedi & Co., had booked space for [Cus. A.A. Nos. 1/201L,2/20L1, &3/201,1 Page 2 ofB f cargo through IATA had not abetted commitment of tlre offence alleged against Exporters. He Was not a CHA and never acted as such. He was neither "G" card holder nor 'H" card holder dnd had no access to customs area. He was never involved in examination, processing of the documents of export or arranged for inspection of goods. He ,had not in.volved himself in the exports. He being neighbor of Sri Tejwant Singh cannot be implicated to charge without any basis of connivance and co