9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on 23rd November, 1989, the Respondents have not chosen to file any affidavit in reply till date. When the matter came up for hearing on 20th January, 2003, Counsel for Respondents sought time with a view to file an affidavit in reply to the petition. In the interest of justice, the request was acceded to and the petition was adjourned. However, even today when the petition is taken up for fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits instead of remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authorities for adjudication of the show cause notices. The Original Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 have died during the pendency of the petition and accordingly their names have been deleted. 3.In this petition, the Petitioners have challenged to show cause notice dated 14th September, 1989 (Exhibit 'E' to the petition) and show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue on this aspect. No case is made out for distinguishing the case of the petitioners with that of Mr. Sule and other Directors. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to permit the Respondents to adjudicate the show cause notice qua the Petitioner No.1. Accordingly we hold that the issues raised in the show cause notice dated 14th September, 1989 being covered by the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal by the company, the said penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- by CEGAT and the same has been paid by the company. In this view of the matter and especially when there is no material with regard to personal involvement of the Petitioner No.1 we see no reason to sustain the second show cause notice dated 26/28th September, 1989 against the Petitioner No. 1. 6.Accordingly, both the show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
