9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d facts so far as relevant are essentially as follows : 2. M/s. Senthil Engineering Company (M/s. SEC) have fraudulently taken credit of Rs. 90,000/- in their PLA account, amount paid in favour of M/s. Venkateswara Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. VEI) and cleared goods fraudulently under invoice Nos. 286, 287, 289 between 28-2-2001 and 19-3-2001 against this fraudulent credit. 3. The cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isamy has left the organisation and undertaken to pay the amount of Rs. 90,000/- with interest and requested for lenient view. 5. Statements were also recorded from Shri Sivasubramani, Director of M/s. VEI on 12-12-2001 and Shri V.K. Arumugam, Managing Director of M/s. VEI as well as Managing Partner of M/s. SEC. Both of them reiterated what was deposed by Shri S. Ganesan laying emphasis on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and would therefore seek to restrict the scope of this Appeal to getting relief from penalty. But even this, is it possible? The Hon ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Candid Enterprises reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 404 (S.C.) has held Fraud nullifies everything . Similarly, forgery is an unpardonable offence. The Hon ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company v. Kamla reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
