2003 (7) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missions made by both sides. The grievance made in this appeal of M/s. Laxmi Exports is against denial of drawback. 3. The learned SDR has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal filed by M/s. Laxmi Exports. The ground taken is that the impugned order had imposed a penalty on Shri Deepak Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Exports and that appeal (C/357/2002-A) was dismissed vide Final Order Nos. 577-578/2002-A, dated 14-11-2002 for non-compliance with order directing pre-deposit of part of the penalty amount. It is the contention of the learned SDR that the present Appeal C/355/2002-A filed by M/s. Laxmi Exports is required to be dismissed in view of Final Order Nos. 577-578/2002-A, dated 14-11-2002. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al 355/2002 NB-A filed by M/s. Laxmi Exports is liable to be rejected for failure to comply with the requirement for deposit of penalty imposed on its Proprietor, Shri Deepak Kumar. We do so. Appeal No. 354/2002-A : 6. The submission is that the appellant Shri Ashok Kumar Dubey is only a Manager of the exporting firm and that he was not in any way personally responsible for the over-invoicing offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence on record and explained that Shri Dubey was not aware of the real price of the exported tea-shirts and that it is the Proprietor of the exporting firm who had full knowledge about price of the goods and other particulars. A perusal of the records of the case confirms....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal C/353/02-A against the impugned order along with stay application and this Tribunal had passed Stay Order Nos. 319-323/2002-A, dated 16-8-2002 directing Shri P.K. Shukla, Proprietor to make pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs. Appeal No. C/353/02-A was subsequently rejected under Order Nos. 577-578/2002, dated 14-11-2002 for failure to make pre-deposit of the amount ordered under the stay order. It is the contention of the learned SDR that since a firm and its Proprietor are one and the same, the failure to make pre-deposit of the penalty imposed on the Proprietor affects the maintainability of the separate appeal filed in the name of the exporting firm, and this appeal is also to be dismissed for the same reason as appeal filed by Shri P.K. Sh....