9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he affidavit/medical certificate filed by the appellant during the course of proceedings. In the absence of denial of the contents of both documents, therefore the statement recorded on 11-11-2009 is not corroborated with concrete evidence for imposing the penalty on the appellant. Moreover, the decision of Special Bench of the Settlement Commission is not binding on the Tribunal and Tribunal is bound by the decision of this Tribunal. - Therefore relying on the decision of Vijay R. Bohra (2010 (10) TMI 218 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), in this case also proceedings against the appellant come to an end. Therefore, no penalty is imposable.- Decided in favour of assessee. - C/1300/2012 - Final Order No. A/141/2013-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 18-1-2013 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is that as the main parties against whom duty demand has been confirmed had approached to the Settlement Commission and Settlement Commission has granted them immunity, therefore as held by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay R. Bohra - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 290 penalty on the appellant cannot be imposed. He further relied on the cases of UOI v. Onkar S. Kanwar - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.), S.K. Colombowala v. CCE - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 492 and Pearl Polymers Ltd. v. CCE - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 566. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the penalty has been imposed on the appellant on the basis of various statements recorded on 11-11-2009 and 17-11-2009. In fact the statement dated 11-11-2009 was retracted by the appellant by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stigation and as well as on the basis of the statement of co-noticees. In this case, the appellant has specifically asked for cross-examination of some of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the adjudicating authority but cross-examination of some was not granted. Therefore, reliance made on the basis of co-noticees statement is incorrect. Moreover, without cross-examining/non-summoning to the witness, liability of penalty is to be set aside as held by the Hon ble High Court in J K Cigarettes Ltd. (supra). Further, the adjudicating authority has not denied the contents of the affidavit/medical certificate filed by the appellant during the course of proceedings. In the absence of denial of the contents of both documents, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
