TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case Shri Chetanbhai R. Patel, the sole proprietor of the appellant expired on 19-8-2008 and the legal heir is before me challenging the Order-in-Appeal. The case against the appellant is that the firm had cleared manmade fabrics clandestinely resulting in confirmation of demand of Rs. 1,13,825/- with equal amount of penalty under Rule 173Q and interest under Section 11AB. 2. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 185 (Tri. - Chennai)] 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. As regards merits, in view of the inculpatory statement of the proprietor, shortage found in the statutory records, panchnama, etc. it is clear that the Revenue has made out a case as held by Commissioner (Appeals) and I find no reason to interfere with the order. The penalty imposed is also on the firm and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. 30-11-2007 whereby the restoration application was again rejected on the ground that the pre-deposit ordered in November, 2003 has not been made and restoration application had been filed after 3 years. Both these orders were passed on the appellant s husband was alive. Again the legal heir of the appellant filed the restoration application consequent to which appeal was restored since pre-de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
