9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er No. DD/MAS/87-88/89(SS) dated 13-12-1999 passed by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement imposing a penalty of Rs. 90,000 against the appellant firm (hereinafter called first appellant) and Rs. 50,000 against appellant Shri K.M. Abdul Jaleel, managing partner of the first appellant (hereinafter called second appellant) for the reasons that the two appellants failed to take reasonable step ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such goods hence question of repatriation of export proceeds does not arise in the facts of this case. Further, it is argued that the second appellant made personal visit to the foreign land twice to persuade the foreign buyer to remit the export proceeds and this can be termed as more than reasonable. Despite this effort adjudicating authority has unreasonably held the appellants guilty against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained and affirmed so far as arriving of the guilt of the first appellant is concerned. 4. First appellant is a partnership firm and second appellant is a partner of the same. The partnership firm is not a corporation having separate legal personality. This Tribunal has time and again held that penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously against the partnership firm as well as partner till fastening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as appellant Shri K.M. Abdul Jaleel is concerned but appeal by M/s. Garments India Exporters is dismissed. The first appellant is permitted to make deposit of the remaining penalty after adjustment of pre-deposited amount within 60 days from the receipt of this order failing which respondents are permitted to recover the same in accordance with the law. The pre-deposited amount may be appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
