9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. There is no application for adjournment on the record. It is seen that the matter was adjourned on earlier occasions and old one, and therefore I take up the appeals for hearing. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Lalchand Agarwal, Power of Attorney Holder of M/s Radhey Krishna Textile Mills and Shri Sanjeev Premhans Agarwal of M/s Radhey Krishna Textile Mills. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 12,78,000.00 along with interest and penalty of equal amount on Appellant No.1 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 on Shri Chandraprakash Lalchand Agarwal, Shri Premprakash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt.Ltd. 2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.). 5. After hearing the ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, I find that the appellants, in the grounds of appeal, contended that the case was made out only on the basis of statement and no other documents are available for arriving the demand of duty. It is also contended that the notice was issued to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, cannot be accepted. The appellant has not countered the documents as referred in the show cause notice as well as in the adjudication order.
7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeals filed by the appellants are rejected.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
