9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ik Modh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Vimlesh Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants are processors of MMF and they do job work for other traders. On 17-10-96 the officers visited the premises of the assessee and found that the statutory records could not be correlated with the quantity of goods received and manufactured. Based on the enquiries made a Show Cause Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority. Penalty under Rule 209A could be imposed only when there is a finding that the person concerned has knowingly handled goods liable to confiscation. In the facts of this case, the penalty therefore cannot be upheld. (b) From the records of this case it is found that there is no evidence which can lead to a conclusion of unaccounted receipt and thereafter production and clearance of good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the penalty under Rule 173Q(1) read with Section 11AC in the facts of this case. Agent imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC has not met the approval of this Tribunal in a catena of decisions. 3. When the duty demands and penalties are not being upheld the imposition of personal penalties on the Director also cannot be sustained on this ground. In view of the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
