9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor Shri A. Kathiresan happens to be the managing partner of the appellant M/s. Skywin Match Industries - Held that: - there is no finding to the effect that Nancy Traders had, "dealt with any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable for confiscation under the Act or the Rules.” In view of the above discussions in the foregoing paras, I set aside the penalty imposed on the second appellant M/s. Nancy Traders. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/40552 & 40555//2014 - ORDER No. 40605-40606/2016 - Dated:- 12-4-2016 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant, for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC(AR), for the Respondent Order Since b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty amount of ₹ 51,865 in the month of March, 2013. He further submits that the manufacture of matches and clandestine removal was not proved with corroborative evidence ie., procurement of unaccounted raw materials etc. He further submits that the allegation is merely made on the basis of presumption and assumption and on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. There was no seizure of any documents evidencing removal of goods without payment of duty, on which the alleged removal of match bundles were made by M/s. Skywin to M/s. Nancy Traders. He further submits that he is no more contesting on the ground or appeal offence and in a step of co-operation, they have paid the entire amount of duty, interest, redemption fine and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the above terms. 7. As regards appeal E/40555/2014 filed by the appellant M/s. Nancy Traders, the Ld. Consultant Shri S. Ramachandran, drew my attention to para No. 13 of the show cause notice at page No. 120 of the appeal paper book wherein it was alleged that ; Nancy Traders 213, Main Road, Sattur is hereby required to show cause to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Division, Virudhunagar as to why (i) a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 should not be imposed on them as they have abetted in the Commission of Offence by way of knowingly procuring nonduty paid matches and rendering their bills for sale as if it is exempted. Rule 26 as it stood at the relevant period is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
