9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Tax Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law for the determination and consideration of this Court :- A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT is right in holding that Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules is not attracted even though it is the statement of the Director himself that he has received the goods from M/s. Shivam Exports ? B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has rightly come to the conclusion that Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, is not applicable ? 2. Heard Mr. R.M. Chhaya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the orders passed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany had not received goods under AR3 As Nos. 1 2, but have received the goods under remaining AR3As and the signatures appearing on delivery challans were those of his Manager and they have made payments of the said goods by cheques. 4. After this investigation, a show-cause notice dated 22-10-2003 was issued to the respondent Company. The said show-cause notice was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I vide his order in original dated 27-5-2004 whereby the penalty of Rs. 10 Lacs was imposed on the respondent Company. The penalty of Rs. 10 Lacs was also imposed on the Director of the respondent Company. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order in original dated 27-5-2004, the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44 (now Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002). The questions framed by the Revenue talk about the penalty levied under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. As a matter of fact, penalty of Rs. 10 Lacs is levied on Shri Sanjay B. Goyal, Director of M/s. Dhanlaxmi Garments Private Limited under the provisions of Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (now Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002). However, this appeal is not pertaining to the said Shri Sanjay B. Goyal. Hence, only on this short ground, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Even on merits also, the order of CESTAT does not call for any interference by this Court. The Tribunal has given specific finding that Rule 25 is applicable only in respect of producer, manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
