TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.12.2012. As such, the impugned order has no legal sanctity and cannot be enforced. It is clear that the earlier first appellate order is by the same office and as such not taken note of, which resulted in the present order. As such, we find the present impugned order lacks legal sanctity and cannot be enforced. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/52246-52247, 52252-52253/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises and Shri Vidhya Sagar Singhal is the Director of M/s. Shirish Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd. These two filed appeal against personal penalty. The original authority vide his order dated 13.09.2012 imposed penalties of ₹ 15,000/- and 10,000/- on the main importers and ₹ 20,000/- on Zim Integrated Shipping Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., shipping agent. The actual quantity of import was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alent amount on M/s. Shirish Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Penalty of ₹ 1.00 Lakh has been imposed on M/s. Pankaj Enterprises and penalties of ₹ 1.00 Lakh each was imposed on the other 2 appellants in this case. 3. In the appeals against this impugned order Id. Counsel submitted that there is no basis for passing this order as the Original order which was subject matter of this appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). A separate appeal was filed by the Revenue against the original order, which resulted in the present impugned order after almost 4 years of the earlier appellate order. We note that when the impugned order was passed no original order was existing, as the same got merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.12.2012. As such, the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
