TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. This appeal is against Adjudication Order No. DD/MAS/87-88/89(SS) dated 13-12-1999 passed by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement imposing a penalty of Rs. 90,000 against the appellant firm (hereinafter called first appellant) and Rs. 50,000 against appellant Shri K.M. Abdul Jaleel, managing partner of the first appellant (hereinafter called second appellant) for the reasons that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t due to change of fashion and there is no sale of such goods hence question of repatriation of export proceeds does not arise in the facts of this case. Further, it is argued that the second appellant made personal visit to the foreign land twice to persuade the foreign buyer to remit the export proceeds and this can be termed as more than reasonable. Despite this effort adjudicating authority ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the adjudication order and it is liable to be sustained and affirmed so far as arriving of the guilt of the first appellant is concerned. 4. First appellant is a partnership firm and second appellant is a partner of the same. The partnership firm is not a corporation having separate legal personality. This Tribunal has time and again held that penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously against ....