TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi in C/Appeal No. 835-841 of 2004 and also by an order dated 24th July, 2006 passed by the Tribunal in C/ROA/179-185/06 declining to restore the appeals filed by the Appellants which were dismissed ex parte by the order dated 31st May, 2006. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we admit the appeal and frame the following substantial question of law for consideration : - "Whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.1), M/s. Kiran Carriers, both Custom House Agents (?CHA?) of M/s. B.G. (Overseas) Corporation and Mr. Kishore Kumar (Appellant No.2 and an employee of M/s. Sai Shipping Services). 3. Feeling aggrieved by the adjudication order dated 17th August, 2004, the Appellants herein (along with others on whom penalties were imposed) preferred appeals before the Tribunal which came to be registered, alon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Without going into the question whether learned counsel for the Appellants was for bona fide reasons, in fact, not available due to some prior engagement in this Court, the Tribunal passed the second impugned order dated 24th July, 2006, and declined to restore the appeals and hear them on merits. The Tribunal also did not discuss the facts pertaining to the Appellants before us. On this basis, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was no difference between the proprietorship firm, that is, M/s. B.G. (Overseas) Corporation and its sole proprietor, Anil Kumar Mahensaria. Since a penalty had been imposed on both, we held that it could be imposed only on one and not the other as it would amount to twice penalizing the same party. 8. In so far as the present appeals are concerned, we are of the view that the Tribunal did ....