9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Oral)]. - C/Stay/548/88/MAS. - Since we propose to dispose of the appeal itself today with the consent of parties, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs. 3,000 imposed on the petitioner jointly under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, by the Additional Collector of Customs, Madurai, by order dated 16th March, 1988. A. No. C/365/88/MAS. - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty is permissible, even then the appellant would not be in a position to question the correctness of the same before the competent appellate authority as the statutory period of 6 months from the date of the receipt of the original order dated 16-3-1988 has already expired. On merits, the learned counsel submitted, that the only evidence against the appellant is the statement of one K. Balasubr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The impugned order reads :- I impose a penalty of Rs. 3,000 on Balasubramaniam @ Pitchai Mani and Prakalathan @ Barla Salt (the appellant) under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. We also note that the corrigendum dated 26-10-1988 is in the nature of a review particularly when a paragraph is sought to be substituted to the original orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under the Acts are penal in nature and the Department has to discharge the burden and establish the charge at least by preponderance of probabilities. In the facts and circumstances of this case the appellant would at any rate be entitled to the benefit of doubt. We, therefore, give the appellant the benefit of doubt and hold that the charge is not sustainable on the evidence available on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
