TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve also gone through the said judgment of the Tribunal and keeping in view the fact that the penalty on Shri Shrikant Sitaram Maniyar was reduced to ₹ 2 lakhs, we reduce the penalty on the present appellant to ₹ 1,75,000/-. Barring this modification in penalty, the appeal is dismissed. - decided against assessee. - APPEAL Nos. E/1785 & 1786/05-Mum - - - Dated:- 29-9-2015 - Mr. P.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Tribunal against the main appellant, which is reported in 2005 (179) ELT 498 (Tri.-Mum) wherein the case against the main appellant has been upheld. The penalty imposed against the main appellant has already been upheld. It was further submitted that a penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs was also imposed on Shri Shrikant Sitaram Maniyar who was the main beneficiary. It was submitted that the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that he is not aware what has happened to the case after the remand order. The appellant further submitted that he had left the company immediately after these cases were made and is not in touch with the company. He further submitted that the case may be decided based upon the available information. 4. Learned AR reiterated the findings in the two orders-in-original and subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication in penalty, the appeal is dismissed. 6. As far as the second appeal is concerned, we find that the matter has been remanded in respect of the main appellant and it is not known what has happened to that case. In any case, the present appellant did not bring these facts at the time of remand order in the main case. We have gone through the said judgment and we find that keeping in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
