2016 (10) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rein is the Managing Director of the company. Therefore, there is no reason for him to be so negligent as not to pursue a remedy, when one other Director has been prompt in pursuing. The Order-in-Original has allowed redemption of goods upon payment of ₹ 40 lakhs. The penalty imposed is ₹ 1.38 crores. Hence, in cases of this nature, the Tribunal cannot decide the case with pedantic app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ounsel for the appellant. Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the second respondent. 3. By an Order-in-Original bearing No. 12/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, he directed the confiscation of goods seized under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, however, with permission to the company to redeem the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 40 lakhs and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unal in paragraph 7 of its decision, that the law of limitation is founded upon public policy. But, in the case on hand, another Director has already filed an appeal in time. It is pending consideration before the Tribunal. The appellant herein is the Managing Director of the company. Therefore, there is no reason for him to be so negligent as not to pursue a remedy, when one other Director has be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X