2009 (12) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner not arriving at any findings regarding the value of the exported products? (2) Whether the tribunal was justified in penallizing the appellant by relying upon the belated statement dated 2.1.2003 Anand Kapadia the Director of Bhairavi Exim which was without any basis and a clear afterthought as well as it was inconsistent with the statement dated 25.6.2002 of Hemant Shah the other Director of M/s. Bhairavi Exim wherein he had admitted that the consignment sent to the appellant contained returned and rejected goods and some of the goods were procured from local market ?" Heard Mr. P.R. Nanavati with Ms. D. K. Contractor, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and perused the order passed by the authorities below. 3. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns of Section-125 of the Act and also imposed penalty of Rs.5 lacs on the appellant under Section-114 of the Act and also imposed penalty of Rs.2 lacs on the partner of the appellant firm. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred Appeal before the CESTAT and the CESTAT vide its order dated 2.12.2009 reduced the redemption fine of Rs.14 lacs to Rs.5 lacs and penalty from Rs.5 lacs to Rs.4 lacs. The separate penalty levied on the partner of M/s.Cosmos was deleted. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal the present Tax Appeal is preferred. 5. Mr.Nanavati has submitted that the adjudicating authority has passed an order without giving an affidavit of cross-examination of the Investigating Officer and the Direc....