TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the affidavit in reply. Petitioner s averment in paragraph no.22 that demand notice dated 7th August, 2001 and refusal order dated 3rd October, 2001 referred to in the adjudication order dated 5 th February, 2008 was not served on petitioner has also not been denied in the affidavit in reply. Therefore, on this ground alone the adjudication order should go. When we read the adjudication order dated 5th February, 2008, the entire order proceeds on the basis that obligations to comply with the provisions of FTDR Act was that of the company, the notices were issued to the company and even penalty has been imposed on the company. hough penalty has been imposed on the company because company has defaulted in the export obligation imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) to the extent the order covered petitioner was granted. 2. Respondent No.2, in the impugned order, has upheld the order passed by Respondent No.3 calling upon petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,30,50,017/- being penalty that was imposed on one Taulis Pharma Ltd. This was because petitioner was the Director at the relevant point of time and the order directs recovery of penalty from petitioner because he was the Director of the company at the relevant point of time. 3. Taulis Pharma Ltd. (formerly known as Tata Pharma Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as the company) had obtained an advance licence dated 5th December, 1996 for import of deprotenized blood extract with an export obligation to export Solcoseryl Injection. The licence had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved any show cause notice dated 26th April, 2002 nor given a notice of personal hearing before passing of the adjudication order. It is also alleged that even the demand notice or refusal order referred to in the adjudication order were also not served upon petitioner. The adjudication order, as rightly stated by petitioner, does not mention anywhere that any show cause notice or demand notice or personal hearing notice or refusal order was ever issued to or served upon petitioner. 6. When petitioner received the adjudication order dated 5 th February, 2008 petitioner filed an Appeal before Respondent No.2. The Appeal was heard and dismissed by an order dated 13th April, 2010. It is this order which is impugned in this petition. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation) Act, 1992, impose a total fiscal penalty of Rs.2,30,50,017/- (Rupees Two Crores, Thirty Lakhs, Fifty Thousand, Seventeen Only). Thus, the Noticee firm and its Director viz., Shri. N.D. Khurody and Shri. H.J. Tavaria are hereby directed to pay the above said penalty amount and produce the requisite evidence to this office within a period of 30 days from the date of this Adjudication Order. (emphasis supplied) 9. Therefore, though penalty has been imposed on the company because company has defaulted in the export obligation imposed on the licence, in the adjudication order, Respondent No.3 has gone ahead and stated that the noticee firm and its Directors are hereby directed to pay above penalty amount and produce the requisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
