9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quest of his for adjournment. The respondent is represented by the SDR. We are inclined to dispose of this old appeal, having also noted that the appellant did not reply to the show-cause notice and also did not attend personal hearing offered by the adjudicating authority. 2. The challenge in this appeal is against a penalty of Rs.25 lakhs imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Bench also noted that the statements of witnesses were not inculpatory of Shri Glenn Almeida. The facts of the instant case and the grounds stated by the Commissioner in support of the impugned penalty on the appellant are apparently different and, therefore, there is no occasion to follow the order dated 10.9.2008. 3. We have perused the memorandum of appeal which contains an account of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ryan Resources Pvt. Ltd. and that the appellant was in no way concerned in any manner with the alleged misdeclaration of the goods. It is submitted that the appellant was only the local buyer of the imported machinery. It is prayed that the penalty on the appellant be set aside. 4. The learned SDR has reiterated the Commissioner's finding contained in paragraphs 10 to 14 of the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant (as contained in his statement dated 24.8.2000) regarding the value of the machine, its description etc. We find that these findings of the Commissioner are not under challenge in this appeal. This memo of appeal contains only an omnibus denial of the appellant's alleged concern with the goods in question. For the appellant to succeed, he should challenge the adverse findings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
