9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission in the sense that he has not specifically mentioned that these goods are liable to confiscation. In view of the specific allegation in the show cause notice which indicates the nature of offence as far as goods are concerned and the consequence of such offence, the findings recorded by the original adjudicating authority is sufficient to show that the goods were liable to confiscation and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. When the matter is called today, no one is present. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants has made a written submission wherein he has submitted that duty, interest and 25% of duty towards penalty have been paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of the adjudicating authority and the balance amount of penalty against the appellant company is required to be waived ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be liable to penalty. In this case, in the show cause notice, in Para -8 it has been specifically made clear that penalty is proposed to be imposed on the Director Shri Vinod V. Tulsian, the appellant herein, for his concern in dealing with processed fabrics for which he had reasons to believe that the same were liable to confiscation. In the adjudicating order also, the original adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition of penalty is justified. The decisions cited by the learned counsel are not relevant since in those cases, facts and circumstances as discussed herein do not exist. In any case, learned counsel has reproduced Para 11 of the decision in the case of Air Carrying Corporation Pvt. Limited reported in 2008 (229) ELT 80 (Tri. Mumbai) which does not reflect that the facts as in this case existe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
