9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 9th of July 2009, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT), in Customs Appeal No. 279 of 2006, whereby the CESTAT confirmed the 2order of penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- imposed on the appellant by the Commissioner of Customs, passed in Order-in-Original No. 16/2005. 2. It appears that the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions contained in 112(a) of the Customs Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the said three persons had preferred the appeals being Nos. 250/2006, 251/2006 and 279/2006 respectively before the CESTAT. The CESTAT after considering the record of the case and hearing the learned Advocates for the parties gave benefit of doubt to the appellants Krishna Tambi and Sachin Tambi by setting aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantial questions of law involved in the present appeal which require consideration. How-ever, the learned Advocate Mr. Ajay Shukla for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the CESTAT is in accordance with law and there being no substantial question of law involved, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al had confirmed the order of penalty passed by the Commissioner of Customs against the present appellant, it is true that on the date of passing of the order by the CESTAT, the learned Advocate for the appellant, had not remained present as directed earlier, however one Mr. U.K. Sharma had already appeared earlier as the counsel for the appellant on 2-5-2009 on which date he was heard. Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
