9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in person and has contended that he was not served with show cause notice dated 24th March, 1998 for confiscation of the gold and personal goods under Section 111(d), 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112(a) (b) of the Act. He states that he had not authorized Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Advocate to appear and respond to the said notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpress us. One Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Advocate had filed a reply to the show cause notice. It is stated in the order/letter dated19th May, 2010of the Joint Commissioner of Customs that personal hearing was given to the petitioner which was also attended by Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Advocate. After considering the reply and contentions raised by the petitioner, the adjudicating authority vide orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as given to the petitioner to redeem the seized gold on payment of redemption fine of Rs.10.5 lacs. The personal penalty of Rs.5 lacs was upheld. 5. In case the petitioner was not served with the show cause notice and the petitioner had not authorized Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Advocate to file reply, he would have raised the said contention in the appeal and the revision. Not only this, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
