9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the appellants are not lawful owner of the goods, in question and imposed a penalty of Rs. 28,000.00 under Rule 209 A of the Rules. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on information, the officers of the Central Excise had taken into possession some consignmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the adjudicating authority. The goods were duly manufactured by them and got hand processed fabrics from Asha Calendar. He submits that they filed an affidavit to this effect before the adjudicating authority. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 3. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that in this case the processed fabric was taken into possession at Am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used to take the goods. The basic issue is whether the appellants are owner of the goods. The appellants had not produced any evidence in respect of the goods, in question, to show that the goods belonged to them. Further, the appellants filed the claim before the adjudicating authority after four months from the seizure of the goods. The Commissioner of Central Excise in the impugned order, gave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
