9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eof are required to be adjudicated on the basis of appreciating factual matrix by giving sufficient and cogent reasons. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal more particularly para 8 thereof shows that no legally justified reasons have been recorded for rejecting the appeals of the revenue. The Tribunal being final fact finding authority was required to deal with all aspects of facts and law before recording its conclusions based thereon. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - CEA No. 6 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Sudeep Singh, Adv ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Delay of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord with RG.1 register maintained by the assessee, it was revealed that from the raw material found short, excess production of various finished goods, viz. (i) Jack Assembly Scorpio 10700 Pcs, (ii) Jack Assembly Panther 7900 Pcs (iii) Paddle Assembly 9650 Pcs and (iv) Scrap 12.185 MT was done which were removed from the factory without payment of central excise duty. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure A-1) was issued to the company for the payment of duty to the tune of ₹ 20,65,497/- (Rs. 20,24,997/- as BED plus ₹ 40,500/- as Education Cess) and for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for brevity the Rules ). In addition, the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 20,65,497/- (Rs. 20,24,997/- as BED plus ₹ 40,500/- as Education Cess) and for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules. In addition, the respondent-director was required to show cause as to why penal action under Rule 26 of the 2002 Rules be not taken against him. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 20.2.2007 (Annexure A-2) confirmed the demand of ₹ 20,65,497/- and also imposed the penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules on the company. Besides penalty of ₹ 20,65,497/- was imposed under Rule 26 of the 2002 Rules on Shri Ghansham Bassi-respondent director of the company. Feeling aggrieved, the company and the respondent-direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
