TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Kumar Mahensaria (Appellant) - since Mr. Anil Kumar Mahensaria is the Appellant before us, the penalty amount is required to be paid by him and not by the proprietorship firm - 10 of 2007 and 6188 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2007 - Madan B. Lokur and Dr. S. Muralidhar JJ. Ms. Shikha Sapra, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Mukesh Anand, Advocate for the Respondent. [Order] - In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hensaria (Appellant) and M/s. Kiran Carriers. According to the Appellant, he is the proprietor of the proprietorship firm M/s. B.G. Overseas Corporation. The allegation was that the readymade garments were being exported at a highly over-valued rate to avail the higher amount of drawback. 4. Aggrieved by the adjudication order, the parties concerned including the Appellant herein, filed appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the circumstances, we answer the substantial question of law in the negative, that is, in favour of the Appellant and against the Revenue. We hold that the only one set of penalty can be imposed against either the Appellant Anil Kumar Mahensaria or the proprietorship firm M/s.B. G. Overseas Corporation. We further direct that since Mr. Anil Kumar Mahensaria is the Appellant before us, the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
