9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ik, AR for the Respondent [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.,] 1. The above appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Venugopal, argued that the notice having been issued pursuant to the investigation [allegations against M/s Aster Tele Services Pvt. Ltd against whom the proceeding 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 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 Subsection (2) of Section 11(A). However, taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
