2003 (3) TMI 478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri A.K. Saxena, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Krishna Kumar, Member (J)]. - Shri M.V. Raveendran, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 crores on the appellant. His submission is that there is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice that the appellant has in any manner dealt with the goods in question. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He also submitted that in view of the decisions in the case of Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) particularly Para 58 thereof, such a penalty is not imposable on the appellant. He also relied on the decision in the cases of Extrusion v. Commissioner of Customs - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 52 (Tri. - Cal.) and Z.U. Alvi v. CCE - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 69 (Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the decisions of the Supreme Court as mentioned above. 3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the impugned order in no way attributes that the appellant was personally looking after the affairs of the Company. Besides, we also do not find any personal gain having been availed by him. Moreover, since the company has gone into liquidation, the department has....