9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for transfer of these three appeals before the two member Bench was made earlier on the ground that the issue involved was of valuation of goods. The proceedings show that the issue is of clandestine removal and therefore the matter would remain in the single member Bench. 2. Nirmal Metal Fabricators Ltd. manufactured excisable goods. Certain finished articles valued at Rs. 98,150/- were found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of the facts stated above, show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of duty of Rs. 26,364.59 alleging liability to confiscation of the goods seized and also alleging liability to penalty on all directors of the two companies and also on Shri S.P. Sheth and one Shinde driver of the taxi which was carrying the goods in the case of which entry in the PLA was not made. 5. The cases were adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition of penalties upon the two companies. It need not be stressed that a company has a separate legal persona from the directors thereof. Since there was no proposal for imposition of penalty on the companies, in the show cause notice, the orders imposing penalty upon them do not survive. The appeals of the companies as far as the penalties are concerned, are allowed. 8. Penalty of Rs. 2,500/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Combines Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1995 (75) E.L.T. 513 (T) = 1995 (56) ECR 678 (Tribunal)]. In this judgment it is held that merely endorsing a copy of the Notice without specifically asking the party to show cause, does not amount to issue of show cause notice. In the present case the notice lists as recipient Shri Shah thus but the infirmity noticed in the cited judgment extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
