9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner, without following the direction of the remand order by the Tribunal, has fixed the duty liability on Shri K.N. Parekh, which is prima facie not acceptable. The applicants have already deposited Rs.12.65 lakhs and penalty partly as per the direction of the earlier stay order. In our view, the deposits made by the applicants are sufficient for waiver of predeposit of balance amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications. 3. The relevant facts of the case in brief as revealed from the impugned order is that Shri Ketan B. Thakkar of M/s. Unique Products, Ahmedabad imported declaring the goods as Lactose' and on examination it was found that they were pharmaceutical products. It was found that Shri K.N. Parekh acted as an authorized representative of Shri Thakkar in relation to clearing these import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that the adjudicating authority appropriated an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs towards redemption fine of the goods. Thus the applicant has deposited Rs.6.65 lakhs against the confirmed demand of Rs.18,40,610/-. The main contention of the applicant is that the adjudication order was passed beyond the direction of the remand order. It is seen from the remand order that the orders for recovery of duty fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act, "the person chargeable with the duty" was the importer and that, if the duty was not recoverable from him, the show-cause notice must set out this fact and make his agent (if any) liable under the proviso to Section 147(3). The orders for recovery of duty from Shri K. N. Parekh and others run counter to this binding case law." 6. We have also noticed that while remanding the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
