9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 83 - AT - CustomsOffence of supplying blank consignment notes committed by proprietor of transport co. - merely because the appellant (son of proprietor of transport company) gave a statement as a power of attorney holder, he cannot be visited with a penalty - either the proprietor or the proprietary concern should have been penalized penalty on son set aside
Issues: Imposition of penalty on son for alleged offense committed by father's proprietary concern in a joint proceeding against several persons and firms.
In this case, the issue at hand was the imposition of a penalty on the son for an alleged offense committed by his father's proprietary concern in a joint proceeding against several persons and firms. The appellant, represented by an advocate, argued that the penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed on the son was unjust as he had given a statement before Customs on behalf of his father's company as a Power of Attorney holder. The advocate contended that either the proprietor or the proprietary concern should have been penalized, if necessary. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) stated that the son had provided a statement indicating that the company supplied blank consignment notes but did not transport any goods. However, the D.R. could not explain why the son was penalized instead of the father, as was done in similar cases involving other transport companies. Upon hearing both sides, the Member (T) of the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the advocate's contention. The Member noted that simply because the son had given a statement on behalf of his father's company as a Power of Attorney holder, he should not be penalized. Additionally, the Member highlighted the lack of explanation as to why in similar cases involving other transport companies, the proprietors were penalized while in this case, the son was penalized. Consequently, the requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and the penalty imposed on the son was set aside, thereby allowing the appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court on 1-1-2008.
|
