9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is directed against the order dated 03-07-2014 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has modified the order passed by the Original Authority and has confirmed the order of forfeiture of security deposit. It has further observed that the respondent herein may apply for fresh licence with fresh security deposit, in accordance with law. 2. We have heard Smt. Manjula K.S. for Sri. N.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he penalty was properly imposed and the appellate Tribunal has erroneously interfered with the order of the first authority. Hence, this Court may consider. She also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. K.M.Ganatra & Co. reported in 2016-TIOL-13-SC-CUS (there is no equivalent citation) in Civil Appeal No.2940/2008 decided on January 14, 2016 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Saravanan and it was on account of no proper care taken by the employee, the lapse for verification has taken place. The Tribunal has also taken note that the age of the respondent was 69 years and he had to take help of his staff. The Tribunal further considered the aspect that for a period of more than eight months the licence remained under suspension and therefore, no profits could be forfeite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r authority, such would not call for interference. 6. The reliance placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. K.M. Ganatra & Co. (supra) is ill-founded because in the case before the Apex Court, it was found in the investigation that the licence was allowed to be used by certain unauthorized person for monetary consideration and further, the agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
