2013 (12) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and, therefore, penalty is, prima facie, warranted. However, there is no justification for separate penalty on the proprietor when there is a penalty on the proprietary-firm - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Stay granted partly. - C/849-851/2012 - STAY ORDER NOS.1610-1612/2012 - Dated:- 13-9-2012 - P G Chacko And M Veeraiyan, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr B Seetharamaiah Mr BV .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bmits that the substitution has happened at the instance of one Shri Raju Shri Rajesh and the appellants are not responsible and, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on them. The learned consultant also submits that there is no justification for separate penalties on the proprietary firm and the proprietor. 4. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) submits that the consignments had been sent no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ew of the above, the stay petitions are disposed of as follows:- (a) Appellant firm M/s. Kamal Footwear is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only) within six weeks from today and report compliance to the Assistant Registrar on 12/12/2012 and Assistant Registrar to report to the Bench on 19/12/2012. Subject to deposit of the above amount by M/s. Kamal Footwear, there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X