9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h there is an application of the appellants for condonation. That application appears to have been overlooked by the Registry. However, I take up that application first for consideration. 2. The appellant is a partner of the firm M/s. Chirag Sanitary Products. Both the firm and its partner were aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 24-10-2000, which was received by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the applicant realised the necessity of filing a separate appeal. Ld. JDR Sh. S.C. Pushkarna submits that the said ground stated by the applicant is not sustainable inasmuch as, before the Commissioner (Appeals), he had filed a separate appeal, whereas he has chosen not to file separate appeal within the prescribed period before the Tribunal against the common order passed by the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrary, I have to infer that it was only subsequent to 19-12-2001 that it occurred to the present applicant that a separate appeal had to be filed against the penalty imposed on him. It is that separate appeal which has been filed by him on 30-1-2002 within a period of three months from the date on which he received a copy of the Final Order dated 29-10-2001 of this Tribunal. The period up to 29-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire affairs of the firm. In the appeal of the firm, this Bench has sustained penalty under Rule 226. That Rule provides not only for penalty but also for confiscation. The penalty imposed on the present applicant is under Rule 209A, whereunder the confiscability of excisable goods is the prime consideration. However, I do not find any allegation in the show cause notice that any excisable goods we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
