TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms (Preventive) has confirmed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on him. 2. The learned Counsel has raised two-fold contention to assail the correctness of the impugned order - firstly, that after the adjudication of the first show cause notice dated 16-2-1995 vide order dated 4-7-1995, the adjudicating authority became functus officio and thereafter neither any addendum dated 13-3-1996 could be legally is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficers of the shipping transport company with the active connivance of the appellant and that the addendum could be legally issued after the adjudication of the main show cause notice and as such, the impugned order is perfectly valid. 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the original show cause notice dated 16-2-1995 was issued to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through that order. 5. After the adjudication of the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority undoubtedly became functus officio. Even the show cause notice having been adjudicated upon, stood exhausted. Therefore, no addendum dated 13-3-1996 for making addition of another para in that show cause notice in order to allege collusion of the appellant with the officers of the shipping transpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing of the order. 6. Apart from this on merits also, for want of any cogent, convincing, tangible evidence against the appellant of having connived with the officers of shipping transport company for the non-manifestation of goods in question in the IGM, no penalty could be imposed on him under Section 112(a) of the Act. 7. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order regarding im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
