Commissioner of Customs vs Kamlesh Khicha

Mr. Jetly submits that substantial question of law arises for determination and consideration, in the light of the Tribunal''s order impugned in this Appeal. We have perused that order, which is dated 18th June, 2013 and in the batch of Appeals (2014 (313) E.L.T. 506 (Tri. - Mumbai)).

We find that the Assessee is the sole proprietary concern. The penalties have been set aside because of the fact that this sole proprietary concern has been already penalized. Therefore, the sole proprietor need not pay penalty separately is the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. That was reached in the case of Mr. Gyanchand Jain, Rayesh Jain, Hiralal Jain and Kamlesh Khicha (Assessee before us). Customs Appeal No. 59 of 2013 challenging a similar direction in favour of Gyanchand Jain has been dismissed by Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party on 27th March, 2014. Finding that the controversy in this Appeal is identical to that of Customs Appeal No. 59 of 2013, for the reasons set out in the order dated 27th March, 2014, even this Appeal fails. It is dismissed.