9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sides. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that he has come from Delhi and the matter is within a very narrow compass. Therefore, the matter may be decided by disposing of the appeal itself. The case relates to imposition of penalty of Rs. 2.00 Lacs (Rupees Two Lacs only) against Shri Sushant Agarwal on the ground that he is the abettor of the whole conspiracy. The Commissioner in his f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have recorded that a sole proprietorship concern and its sole proprietor are one and same, then it would have been a factually and legally correct position. But to say that partnership firm and partners are one and same is beyond legal comprehension. The partners of the firm cannot be let out on this ground. Besides, I also find from the finding portion of the Ld. Commissioner that Shri Tushar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the stay petition and as such, the same is dismissed. 2. In the circumstances of the case, the Consultant for the Appellant submits that the appellant is wrongly penalized in the whole conspiracy. He, therefore, submits that there is no case against the appellant and the penalty cannot sustain against him. 3. The Ld. JDR has reiterated the impugned order. 4. After hearing both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
