9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability and paid the demand, interest and penalty. Thereupon the proceedings were considered to be concluded against M/s Aster Tele Services(P)Ltd. and no show cause notice was issued to them. Therefore, J agree with the view of the authorities below and the Ld. AR that the appellant cannot be considered as a co-noticee and cannot be absolved from the liability under the first proviso to Subsecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Rules, 2002. 2. A show cause notice dated 18-04-2013 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant had shown wrong description and wrong classification of the goods sold to M/s Aster Tele Services Pvt.Ltd., who availed credit on the said goods. It is submitted that M/s Aster Tele Services Pvt. Ltd. accepted the liability and paid the demand, interest and penalty and requested t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been concluded, the appellant should be absolved from all liability, being a co noticee, for proceedings. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Raman Gandhi vs CCE Delhi -2015(323) ELT 579 (Tri.Del). And CCE Raipur (CG) vs Jayprakash Agarwal -2013(297) ELT 554) (Tri-Del) . The Learned Counsel also prayed for a lenient view as the main appellant has paid all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, J agree with the view of the authorities below and the Ld. AR that the appellant cannot be considered as a co-noticee and cannot be absolved from the liability under the first proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 11(A). However, taking into consideration that the appellant was only a dealer and that M/s Aster Tele Services Pvt.Ltd have paid the liability, I hold that penalty imposed is on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
