2016 (5) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakh under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant was the Director of 100% EOU namely, M/s. Infocall Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, New Delhi. On 4-7-2006, the appellant resigned from the said company and later on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order qua imposition of penalty be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned AR submits that period of dispute is 8-2-2006 to 11-3-2006 and during the relevant time, the appellant was the Director of the Company, therefore, penalty is rightly imposed. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. On considering the rival statement, I find that appellant has resigned ....