9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Biren N. Shah by invoking the provisions of section 68(1) of the Act. 2. After hearing the parties we are of the opinion that this case has to be remanded for fresh adjudication. In view thereof, we waived the requirement of pre-deposit. This order disposes of the appeal. 3. It is seen that this appeal has been filed by the appellant against the imposition of penalty by virtue of his being the person responsible to the company Neptune Auto Spares (P.) Ltd., for its affairs at the relevant time. The appellant has denied that he was the person contemplated under section 68(1). It has been argued, therefore, the imposition of penalty on him is not maintainable. 4. Shri Ankhad submitted that no appeal has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the Director of Revenue Intelligence (FERA). Shri Ashwin Ankhad, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that it is clear from the evidence that the company s accounts were exclusively handled by the Director Dhirendra Sheth and not by the appellant. He further submitted that for the purpose of charge of contravention of section 9(1)(a), read with section 68(1), the most important point to be considered is as to who handled the matter of receiving and making payments on behalf of the company. He submitted that, therefore, it was essential for the Adjudicating Officer to consider the evidence filed by the appellant under the cover of the letter dated 6-7-1997 which was filed in pursuance of the directions made by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directors was responsible for the payment, it was necessary for him to hear both the directors in each others presence. 10. Shri Gadoo, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the allegation of making of payment on behalf of Neptune Auto Spares (P.) Ltd. to the foreign suppliers having been established, the issue before the learned Adjudicating Officer, on remand, would be as to which of the two directors is responsible for the said payment, after considering the evidence on record. However, since Dhirendra Sheth has already been exonerated, the learned Adjudicating Officer would be handicapped in arriving at a fresh finding on the objective consideration of the evidence on record. He submitted, it will be necessary to consider the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
