2013 (11) TMI 391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....P K Das All the applications are arising out of a common order and hence they are taken up together. 2. The applicants have filed these miscellaneous applications for recalling of the Miscellaneous Order No.40325 to 40330/2013 dated 5.2.2013 which was passed exparte. After hearing both sides, we recall the stay order dated 5.2.2013 and with the consent of both sides we proceed to dispose of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... each on Sujata K. Mehta and Neepa Shah respectively. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. It is seen that the impugned order was passed in terms of the remand order dated 17.11.2008 of the Tribunal. The learned counsel submits that they have already deposited Rs.12.65 lakhs towards duty and Rs.30,000/- towards penalty by Shri K.N. Parekh and Rs.10,000/- each by other two applican....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and therefore no duty could be recovered from him without a specific finding to the effect that such duty was not recoverable from the importer himself vide proviso to sub-section (3). As a matter of fact, the show-cause notices did not invoke this proviso to make the importer's agent liable for payment of duty. In the case of Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. (supra), the apex court held that, for pur....