9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order]. Background facts so far as relevant are essentially as follows : 2. M/s. Senthil Engineering Company (M/s. SEC) have fraudulently taken credit of Rs. 90,000/- in their PLA account, amount paid in favour of M/s. Venkateswara Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. VEI) and cleared goods fraudulently under invoice Nos. 286, 287, 289 between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. VEI the same has not been taken credit by M/s. VEI; that Shri Vellaisamy has left the organisation and undertaken to pay the amount of Rs. 90,000/- with interest and requested for lenient view. 5. Statements were also recorded from Shri Sivasubramani, Director of M/s. VEI on 12-12-2001 and Shri V.K. Arumugam, Managing Director of M/s. VEI as well as Managing Partner of M/s. SEC. Bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ense deviousness. Appellant himself finds it futile to explain his shattered credibility, and would therefore seek to restrict the scope of this Appeal to getting relief from penalty. But even this, is it possible? The Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Candid Enterprises reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 404 (S.C.) has held "Fraud nullifies everything". Similarly, forgery is an unpardon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s self chosen. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore trust the Physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility, for his hand, though heavy and hard is guided by the tender hand of the Unseen." Appeal deserves rejection. Appellant also liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as penalty under Rule 173Q of CER, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
