9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ysical verification of the goods loaded in the three wheeler auto they found 8 gunny bags containing 3200 poly pouches of Talab brand Gutka valued at Rs. 48,640/- involving the Central Excise duty of Rs. 19,456/-. Since the goods were not accompanied by a document evidencing the payment of Central Excise duty, the same were seized along with the three wheeler auto. The licensed premises of the appellants were also searched and on conducting the physical verification of stock of the finished goods, there was found to be a shortage of 1760.700 kgs of gutka valued at Rs. 3,20,473/- involving the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,28,189/-. The authorised representative of the appellants, Shri Inder Dev Tripathi in his statement of even date admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Rs. 5,000/- respectively apart from a penalty of Rs. 19,456/-. He further confirmed the duty of Rs. 1,28,189/- on the appellants and imposed a penalty of an equal amount to duty under Section 11AC. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 19,456/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q and a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on Shri Deepak Gaur, driver under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The appellants M/s. Som Flavours filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi against the aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and raised a preliminary question regarding the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate the case on allegation of non-levy of excise duty on account of fraud, collusion and suppre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide his order dated 31-5-2001, he has confirmed the same finding and the amounts of duty, fine, penalties as arrived at earlier by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 30-7-97. 5. The party again filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 28-8-2001 rejected the appeal upholding the order-in-original passed by the Joint Commissioner. 6. This appeal is against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Randhir Singh, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri B.C. Mahey, ld. JDR for the respondents. The appeal is only by M/s. Som Flavours. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the original authority in this case did not give them an opportunity of personal hearing and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), when the matter first went up before that authority, the party had only challenged the competence of the Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate the case. The objection of the party was accepted and the matter remanded for re-adjudication by the competent authority. In the second stage of proceedings, when the matter again came up before the Commissioner (Appeals) though he has rejected this contention of the party as only a technical lapse but however since the earlier order dated 17-1-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) had already achieved finality, in my view this point could not have either been agitated or considered in the subsequent proceedings in the same matter. The matter was remanded to the competent adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
