9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further the goods were seized under mahazar on 19-12-1999 valued at Rs. 76,11,373/- were confiscated under Section 111(m) with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 20,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 55,43,946/-was also imposed under Section 114(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Appellant Company. In addition to this interest amounting to Rs, 55,43,946/- was demanded under Section 28AB. Apart from this a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- was also imposed on Ravi Kasumbaiah, Managing Director of the Appellant Company. In addition to a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Thomas Mathew, Director of the Appellant Co. and also a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e joint proceedings against five persons including the appellant company. The present appellants appeared for Personal Hearing on 7-12-2000. Subsequent to the hearing Shri Thomas Mathew another co-noticee has filed reply and Personal Hearing was granted to his Advocate/Consultant on 2-2-2001. As can be seen from the impugned order the statement/evidences placed by Shri. Thomas Mathew has been much relied upon by the adjudicating authority in arriving at the conclusion. There was a clash of interest between the appellants Shri Mathew Thomas, and accordingly it was open for the adjudicating authority to give an opportunity to rebut the evidences placed by Shri Thomas Mathew as it was against the interest of these persons. In support of his co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the matter itself can be disposed of on the limited issue. Accordingly the amount required to be deposited for the purpose of hearing the appeals is dispensed with and appeals are taken up for Regular Hearing with consent of both sides. 8. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that there is some force in the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee with reference to the denial of principles of natural justice. Since the adjudicating authority has allowed Shri Thomas Mathew to represent his case subsequent to the hearing on behalf of the appellants, it was just and reasonable to allow one more opportunity to these appellants to rebut, any, evidence placed by Shri Thomas Mathew, if it is found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
