TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anth, CGSC, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The petitioner has called into question the second respondent Appellate Authority's order, dated 10th April, 2006 (Annexure-E) and for remitting the matter back to the first respondent for verification of the documents and grant fresh hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent imposed a fiscal penalty of Rs. 11,04,002/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25,000/-. The petitioner sought some more opportunities, which were given by the respondent No. 2. However, as the petitioner did not submit the required pre-deposits and confirmed that it could not fulfil its obligations against the export licence, the respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal by its order, dated 10th April, 2006 (Annexure-E). It is this order, which is impugned in this writ petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondents submits that this petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner has neither challenged the order reducing the amounts to 25% of the penalty amount nor has he challenged the validity of the second and third proviso to Section 15(1) of the said Act. The result is that what has been filed by the petitioner is only a defective appeal, which is rightly rejected by the second respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore to the impugned order passed by the second respondent Appellate Authority is negatived. I see considerable force in the submissions of Sri Shashikanth that the petitioner, who has not chosen to challenge the order of the second respondent Appellate Authority reducing the pre-deposit to 25% of the penalty amounts or to challenge the validity of the second and third proviso to Section 15(1) of ....