9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der per : Krishna Kumar, Member (J)]. - Shri M.V. Raveendran, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 crores on the appellant. His submission is that there is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice that the appellant has in any manner dealt with the goods in question. The order of the adjudicating authority is based on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) particularly Para 58 thereof, such a penalty is not imposable on the appellant. He also relied on the decision in the cases of Extrusion v. Commissioner of Customs - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 52 (Tri. - Cal.) and Z.U. Alvi v. CCE - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 69 (Tri.). His submission is that the legal position enu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the impugned order in no way attributes that the appellant was personally looking after the affairs of the Company. Besides, we also do not find any personal gain having been availed by him. Moreover, since the company has gone into liquidation, the department has already filed claim for the duty and penalty in the liquidati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
