Page 200 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

878 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

4-8-2015 stands duly complied with when department returned the sale proceeds
of impugned gold as were received in the year 2001 when this gold was auction
sold. Thus the appellant is not held entitled for the gold as such nor for its mar-
ket value as prevalent in the year 2015. Seen from any angle, there is opined no
infirmity in the order under challenge. The appeal in hand has no legal ground to
succeed. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 8-1-2020)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 878 (Tri. - Mumbai)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
[COURT NO. I]
Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) and Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMP.), ACC, MUMBAI
Versus
BIG VISION PVT. LTD.
Final Order Nos. A/87165-87166/2019, dated 23-10-2019 in Appeal Nos.
C/1084/2004 & C/303/2005
Settlement of case - Matter in the case of Respondent 1 has been set-
tled by the order of Settlement Commission - Amount settled having been
paid and full immunity from prosecution being granted in terms of Section
127H of Customs Act, 1962, appeal filed against Respondent 1 infructuous.
[para 4.1]
Penalty - Respondent 2 viz. Shri Santosh Nair working for foreign
suppliers as Indian representative and issued Proforma Invoice as instructed
by his principal - Proforma issued by Respondent 2 not even the basis for fil-
ing the import documents and, therefore, not relevant for imposition of penal-
ty - In fact said Proforma invoice never the part of the import documentation,
though it was part of negotiation documents between the foreign supplier and
the Importer in India - Respondent 2 not abetted in the evasion of the Customs
duty by misdeclaring the value for purpose of imposition of penalty under
Section 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 5.1, 5.2]
Appeals dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner, AR, for
the Appellant.
S/Shri Jhamman Singh and S.P. Sheth, Advocates,
for the Respondent.
[Order per : Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T)]. - These appeals have been
filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Original No. 77/2003/CAC/CC/RJM,
dated 15-10-2003 of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), New Custom
House, Mumbai. By the impugned order Commissioner held as follows :-
“2. The Adjudicating Authority was informed on 27-5-2002 by the legal
representative of Shri Shalesh Visaria MD of M/s. Big Vision Pvt. Ltd. and
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  200