2007 (12) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal'), Principal Bench, New Delhi in C/Appeal No. 835-841 of 2004 and also by an order dated 24^th 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 f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., M/s. Sai Shipping Services, (Appellant 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 17^th August, 2004, the Appellants herein (along with others on whom penalties were imposed) preferred appeals before th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tribunal when the appeals were taken up for hearing. 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 24^th July, 2006, and declined to restore the appeals and hear them on merits. The Tribunal also did not discuss the facts p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roprietor, Anil Kumar Mahensaria. We were of the view that 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 app....