2020 (2) TMI 409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e facts on record held that the deposit was not made by the Petitioner but by Mr. Pravin Mody. If it is the case of the Petitioner that the amount was not deposited by Mr. Pravin Mody, it would be a case of wrong forfeiture of the deposit. Nothing is shown as to why this ground cannot be agitated in the pending appeal filed by the Appellant. Since this remedy of Appeal is available and already ava .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nvolved in the evasion of duty. As regards the Petitioner a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- was imposed for his act of omission and commission under Section 112 (a) and/or 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. As against this order the Petitioner has filed an Appeal which is pending. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Commissioner has erroneously forfeited the deposit made by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X