9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... together and are remained disposed of under this common order. 2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that during April 1998, about 96,800 CD ROMs were exported to M/s. Mondial General Trading, Ajman, UAE. These CD ROMs titles are discovery and encyclopedia . FOB value of the consignment was about Rs. 7.2 crores. M/s. Sundram Exports Pvt Ltd. Janakpuri, New Delhi was the exporter. 3. Similarly, 40,000 CD ROMs with declared FOB value of about Rs. 3 crores were exported in May 1998 by M/s. Netcompware Pvt. Ltd. These exports were to M/s. Landmark Exim (HK) Co., Hong Kong. 4. The above exports were under claim for DEPB and based on the export value, DEPB scrips of over Rs. 1.5 crore was issued to the parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel has also pointed out that the applicant/his firms had deposited about Rs. 17 lakhs during the investigation, against the present penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs. 8. Deep Swarup Aggrawal has contended that the order has been passed ex-parte and is entirely unjust. He has also submitted that the appellant is financially in unsound condition and that his income from salary is Rs. 10,000/-. He has also contended that since the export firms were legal entities it is not permissible to proceed against individuals in respect of exports of those firms. 9. The submission of Shri Ratinder Pal Singh Bhatia is that he was not served copy of show cause notice or hearing intimation. He has also refuted the allegation of participating in the fraud. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons concerned also remains brought out by the evidence on record and have been disclosed in-the impugned order. Shri Bimal Kumar Jain and Deep Swarup Aggarawal were the main parties in the fraud and Bimal Kumar Jain s responsibility in creating the bogus commercial entity of its name and spirit away funds through two other commercial entities controlled by him are all well brought out in the order. Therefore, imposition of penalty on him was quite justified. However, the applicant s firm has already deposited Rs. 17 lakhs out of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed as penalty. Thus, bulk of the penalty remains already deposited. We consider this to be sufficient for the purpose of taking up the appeal. Accordingly, the requirement for pre-deposit of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
