9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is engaged in the business of trading in computer parts and accessories. One Praveen is the proprietor of M/s. Suntech. which is a unit registered with Sales Tax Authorities as well as holder of import Export Code. In pursuance of the investigation conducted against Mr. Praveen the Customs Authorities found grave irregularities in importing the goods. They issued a show cause notice dated 21-3-2003 alleging that the appellant was the person who had master minded the entire activity, right from planning, creation managing and monitoring of all operations of M/s. Suntech with a mala fide intention to evade customs duty. He was the brain behind misdeclaration, non-declaration and over declaration and also under valuation of the goods consigned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were liable for confiscation an amount of Rs. 10,37,509.00 was levied as customs duty and a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000.00 was imposed. 3. Aggrieved by the said order. the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on reappreciation of the entire material on record taking note of the statements of various persons recorded and other material on record, up held the order of the adjudicating authority in so far as appellant is concerned and in respect of others, the penalty was reduced. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the said order of the Tribunal. 4. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law. (1) Whether the Tribunal has rightly consigned the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal was right at law in holding the Appellant as the Importer in the background at the order of the Tribunal in C.101/2003, dated 31-1-2004 which was binding on the Department? (9) Whether the Tribunal was right in law for having passed an order contradictory to the order in C.No. 101/2003, dated 31-1-2004? (10) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in disregarding the observations of the Tribunal by Final Order No. 267/2004 dated 22-1-2004? 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order contended that in the first place, the show cause notice issued is defective as it has been issued to two persons. If Praveen is only t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
