TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on the part of the present appellant which makes him liable for penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act. The impugned order in respect of the present appellant is set aside and appeal in this regard is allowed. - C/51/2008 - A-41/KOL/2011, - Dated:- 12-1-2011 - S/Shri S.S. Kang, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. Shri Vijay Prahladka, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Chakraborty, SDR, for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of Revenue is that as per the finding in the impugned order the appellant is mastermind behind the purported claim of seized goods with the intent of wrongful gain and played the role of claimant in disguise. In view of this, the contention is that appellants are liable to penalty. 4. We find that in the first adjudication order the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed which was increased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem before the investigating agency or before the adjudicating authority. He has not brought Sri Santosh Kumar Bajoria before me in course of de novo adjudication proceeding in spite of his undertaking before Ld. Tribunal. Sri Santosh Kumar Bajoria appeared on none of the occasions. This shows Sri Vijay Prahladka s ill-motive to delay the de novo adjudication proceedings and that he intentionally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
