9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9-8-2007. 2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. Heard the learned DR. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents have two units one at 11-12, Industrial Area No. 2, A B Road, Dewas, (Unit No. 1) and another at 76, Industrial Area. No. 3, AB Road, Dewas (Unit No. 2). When the officers visited the factory premises of Unit 1 on 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of Rs. 1,84,000/- under Rule 25; and a penalty of Rs. 2,72,629/- under Rule 13(1) for violation of provisions of Rule 4(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 on Unit No. 1. In addition, he imposed a separate penalty of Rs. 1,84,000/- on the second unit. Commissioner (Appeals) in pursuance of remand order of the Tribunal dated 2-3-2007, upheld the confiscation of the goods and also upheld the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate entities having separate central excise registrations and, therefore, separate penalty on unit No. 2 was also justified. It has also been contended that the case laws relied upon by the Commissioner related to condonation of technical lapses and in the instant case the respondents have failed to observe the provisions of basic law. The grounds of appeal also mention that as the goods have alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock register of Unit No. 1. The Commissioner has come to the conclusion that it is a case of improper maintenance of accounts but there is no intention to evade excise duty. The grounds of appeal clearly indicate that the goods have been exported to China and Ethiopia. This is in conformity of claim of respondents at the time of visit of the officers that the goods were sent to Unit No. 2 for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
