9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)]. - The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-10-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad against Order-in-Original dated 23-1-1998 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. 2. The Central Excise Officers visited the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 not paid on 12,34,352 metres of processed MMF and CF and penal action was also proposed. 4. The case was decided by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, vide O-I-O No. 36/Coller/1991, dated 29-11-1991 wherein Central Excise duty of Rs. 14,32,100.01 was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed on the 'assessee' under Rule 173Q of CER, 1944 and penalty under Rule 209 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellants shall be examined............... It is pertinent to note that the case was remanded back by the Tribunal in the year 1993, for five years de novo proceedings were not conducted by the adjudicating authority, had the de novo proceedings conducted earlier, there were all the chances that the Department could have located the two prime witnesses and the facts would have been diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the benefit of Notification No. 253/82 was admissible to the appellants as they have not carried out the printing process in their premises and the printing was done in other units outside the factory premises. 7. We have gone through the grounds of appeal and considered the submissions made by the ld. JDR. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) do not call for any interference, as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
