9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit Rules, 2002, Rule 25 of CE Rules, 2002 and Section 11AC of CE Act, 1944, and Rs.5,00,000 Rule 25 of the CE Rules, 2002, Rule 25 of CE Rules, 2002 and Section 11AC of CE Act, 1944, and Rs.5,00,000 Rule 25 of the CE Rules, 2002 - E/S/10965/13 Shri Sarin Chevil - Rs. 10,00,000/- - E/S/11008/13 M/s.Narayan Silk Mills - Rs. 5,00,000/- - E/S/11009/13 Sh. Hiren S. Bhatt - Rs. 10,00,000/- - E/S/11172/13 Sh. Mickey M. Jariwala - Rs. 10,00,000/- - E/S/11468/13 Sh. Purushottam R. Nandwani - Rs.10,00,000/- - E/S/11559/13 Sh. Mukesh Agarwals - Rs. 10,00,000/- - 2. At the outset we would like to the record that M/s. Pee Tee Silk Mills P. Ltd and Purushottam Ramdhan Nandwani are un-represented and nor there is any requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority is an order is in violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order being in violation of principle of natural justice and is un-sustainable only on this ground. In order to meet ends of justice, we are of the considered view, that portion of the impugned order that confirms demands against the Jai Hanuman Drg & Ptg Mills Ltd. along with an interest thereof and imposed penalties on M/s. Jai Hanuman Drg & Ptg Mills Ltd and also the Director of the firm i.e. Mukesh Agarwal, needs to be set aside and the matter pertaining to these appellants needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. Sh. Mukund Chauhan, Consultant appearing on behalf of these appellants is directed to file a reply within four weeks f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of materials. All the evidence and legal issue raised by the Ld. counsel in defence of Shri Chevli needs to be gone into detail and appreciated which could be only done at the time of final disposal of the appeals. We are of the view that the appellant has not made out a case for complete waiver of the amounts involved. Accordingly, keeping in mind that the person is an individual and also the financial hardship claimed by the ld. consultant, we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. Ten thousand only within a period of 8 weeks from today and report compliance on 3.10.2013 before the Dy. Registrar. Dy. Registrar after ascertaining such compliance will place the file before the bench for passing appropriate orders on 10.10.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing counsel Shri Hardik Modh, and Departmental representative on the stay petitions filed by them, we find that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. Narayan Silk Mills and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Sh. Hiren S. Bhatt who is a proprietor of M/s. Narayan Silk Mills Ltd. At the outset we agree with the contention raised by the ld. counsel that adjudicating authority cannot impose penalties on the proprietor Sh. Hiren Sanat Bhatt and also on M/s. Narayan Silk Mills. We are of the view that any penalty imposed on Shri Hiren S. Bhatt prima facie is unsustainable, being the fact that he is a proprietor. Accordingly, application and Shri Hiren S. Bhatt for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
