9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order]. - On examination of the records and hearing both the sides, I find that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. I, therefore, allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The appeal is against imposition, by the Commissioner of Customs, of a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants under Section 112(a) and (b) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een even referred to in the impugned order, was received by the appellant on 20-9-2001, whereupon the appellant by telegram dated 25-9-2001 requested the Commissioner for a further adjournment of hearing in the case. Counsel has brought on record a copy of the notice of hearing as also copies of either sides of the envelope thereof. A copy of telegram dated 25-9-2001 has also been produced. Ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand, submits that, though the appellant was released from COFEPOSA detention as early as on 20-7-2001, he did not appear or cause to be represented before the Commissioner on 13-8-2001. No reason whatsoever is forthcoming in the present appeal for the non-appearance on that day. Ld. DR further submits that, even after receipt on 20-9-2001 of the notice of hearing for 18-9-2001, he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served on the appellant. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the appellant s plea that, soon after receipt of the notice, he sent a telegram to the Commissioner on 20-9-2001. The receipt dated 25-9-2001 issued to the appellant by the Telegraph Office is available on record. There is no reason to think that the Commissioner did not receive any telegraphic communication like this. The impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
