9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /KOL/2007 - Dated:- 31-8-2007 - Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) [Order per] - The ld. Counsel Shri K.K. Banerjee appearing for the Appellant submitted that when the goods were not meant for confiscation by show cause notice itself as well as appreciated by the ld. Adjudicating Authority in Para-33 of the order of adjudication, penalizing both the appellants shall be prejudicial to the interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty being imposed. Therefore, the pre-deposit may be dispensed and in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the appeal may also be disposed. 2. The ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the authority below. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. Considering that the only legal infirmity is subject matter of appeal it was considered proper to dispose the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant were also not liable to penalty Considering that neither the show cause notice nor the order of adjudication brought clearly the charge against the appellant to fulfil the condition under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, penalising both the appellants would be unjust and uncalled for. However, when the goods were not liable for confiscation, levy of penalty without specific charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
