9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.L. Chandra was to share profit with Neeraj Jain in the ratio of 80%:20%. Penalty should be proportionate. It is also submitted that penalty of ₹ 1 lac has been imposed on Santosh Kumar Jain, but penalty of ₹ 3 lacs has been imposed on the appellant. Santosh Kumar Jain, it is claimed and submitted is the recorded proprietor. It is brought to our notice that M.L. Chandra was hospitalized immediately after recording of his statement dated 31st January, 2004 and the retraction dated 5th February, 2004 was made while the said appellant was still in hospital - Penalty redeuced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - CUS.A.C. No. 16 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. Ms. Shikha Sap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal are clear and categorical and do not require any interference. There was misdeclaration of the export goods by M/s. Amber Traders Company. M/s. Amber Traders Company had not filed any appeal against the Order-in-Original before the Tribunal and they are not the appellant before us. 4. M/s. Amber Traders Company situated at Vishal Chamber 111, Section 18 had obtained IEC code and had a bank account in Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Sector-18, Noida. The firm was shown as a sole proprietorship of one Santosh Kumar Jain. However, in the account opening form, it was noticed that M.L. Chandra s photograph was described/noted as that of Santosh Kumar Jain. The respondents relied upon statement of M.L. Chandra under Section 108 of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each has also been imposed on Shailender Singh and Santosh Kumar Jain, but they were not appellants before the Tribunal in the batch of appeals decided by the impugned order. It is submitted that when penalty of ₹ 7 lacs has been imposed on Neeraj Jain, then the penalty of ₹ 3 lacs on appellant M.L. Chandra is not justified even if we accept that M.L. Chandra was to share profit with Neeraj Jain in the ratio of 80%:20%. Penalty should be proportionate. It is also submitted that penalty of ₹ 1 lac has been imposed on Santosh Kumar Jain, but penalty of ₹ 3 lacs has been imposed on the appellant. Santosh Kumar Jain, it is claimed and submitted is the recorded proprietor. 8. It is brought to our notice that M.L. Chand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
