9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of ₹ 10,000/- - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/271/2007-DB - Final Order No. A/75839/KOL/2016 - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - SHRI H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY MEMBER (JUDICIAL). Shri R. N. Bandopadhyaya, Consultant for the Appellant. Shri k. C. Jena, ADC (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per Shri H.K. Thakur This appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the bench go through Para- 14 of the OIO dt 20/8/2007, to argue that appellant on 24/4/2006 was asked to explain the difference in the quantities of 8, 48,000 PCS mentioned in two shipping bills against which a procurement of 3, 29,000/- PCS of bill during the period April 2002 to September 2002 was shown. That appellant desired to check it up and promised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records that this appellant, along with the main exporter M/s Promising Export Ltd, Kolkata, filed only a joint reply dt 21/11/06. Appellant is one of the directors of M/s Promising Export Ltd which means appellant was closely intimately involved in the activities undertaken by the exporter. As per Para-14 of the OIO dt 28/8/2007 appellant was summoned to explain the quantity of 8,48,000 Pcs de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson monitoring the exports and someone else was doing the export related work. Though these details are not discussed by the Adjudicating authority while imposing penalty upon the appellant but the above facts were available on record. Appellant was playing the lead role in explaining the case of the exporter during the investigation. 5. In view of the above observations appellant had played p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
