2001 (5) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....12,619/- was demanded under the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further the goods were seized under mahazar on 19-12-1999 valued at Rs. 76,11,373/- were confiscated under Section 111(m) with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 20,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 55,43,946/-was also imposed under Section 114(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Appellant Company. In addition to this interest amounting to Rs, 55,43,946/- was demanded under Section 28AB. Apart from this a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- was also imposed on Ravi Kasumbaiah, Managing Director of the Appellant Company. In addition to a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Thomas Mathew, Director of the Appellant Co. and also a penalty of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... He said that the proceedings are joint proceedings against five persons including the appellant company. The present appellants appeared for Personal Hearing on 7-12-2000. Subsequent to the hearing Shri Thomas Mathew another co-noticee has filed reply and Personal Hearing was granted to his Advocate/Consultant on 2-2-2001. As can be seen from the impugned order the statement/evidences placed by Shri. Thomas Mathew has been much relied upon by the adjudicating authority in arriving at the conclusion. There was a clash of interest between the appellants Shri Mathew Thomas, and accordingly it was open for the adjudicating authority to give an opportunity to rebut the evidences placed by Shri Thomas Mathew as it was against the interest of the....