9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gde with Sundar Rajan, Advocates, for the Appellants. Miss R. Lakhani, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. These applications are for waivar of deposit of duty of Rs. 81.32 lakhs and penalties of Rs. 20 lakh on Manharlal H. Vora (Application 1045), Rs. 10 lakh on Ashwin S. Mehta (Application No. 1189) and Rs. 5 lakhs on Shalin M. Vora (Application 1044). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 40 lakhs has already been paid. 2. The Advocates for the other two applicants contend, in addition, that there is no specific finding with regard to liability of penalty on either of them. 3. The Departmental Representative relies upon the definition of the term importer in Clause (26) of Section 2 of the Act to say that the owner of the goods can be considered to be importer. She conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom this applicant and penalty on it as the importers is prima facie doubtful. Prima facie the order of the Commissioner does not indicate any specific acts of wrong doing on the part of Shalin M. Vora and Ashwin S. Mehta; the emphasis in this order relating to these persons is on their knowledge of the activities of Manharlal H. Vora. 5. Taking these aspects into consideration as also the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
