9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - These matters arise before us for the second time. Vide Final Order Nos. 310-313/2005, dated 3-3-2005, this Bench had remanded these matters for readjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the light of that Authority s Order No. 148/2004 (H) (III) C.E., dated 27-9-2004 in respect of M/s. Rafiq Brothers, one of the co-noticees who was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt M/s. Dhariwal Tobacco Pvt. Ltd., (2) Penalty of ₹ 1,32,000/- under Rule 173Q in lieu of confiscation. (3) Penalty of ₹ 1,64,500/- under Rule 173Q. (4) Penalty of ₹ 10,000 on Mrs. Sobha Dhariwal u/s. 115 of the Customs Act. (5) Penalty of ₹ 60,000/- on Prashath Bafna, Chief Executive of DTPL under Rule 209A. (6) Penalty of ₹ 30,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals) had given detailed findings as to how the allegation of clandestine removal of excisable goods by DTPL was not substantiated. He submits that the said order had become final in view of the fact that the department did not file an appeal against it. It is his submission that in view of the findings in the said order, the findings contained in the impugned order to the contrary are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed an appeal before her not liable to penalty under Rule 209A on the ground it had not dealt with excisable goods which it had reason to believe were liable for confiscation. The above matter had arisen before the Commissioner (Appeals) in a second round when the appeals filed by others including DTPL had been pending before the Tribunal. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had given detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
