2016 (12) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the adjudication order. He records that there was no doubt about the conduct of the appellant. But surprisingly in para 12.03, he imputed culpability of the appellant for no reason stated. In such circumstance, decision of the authority is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside From the finding recorded by Adjudicating Authority any mischievous conduct of the appellant is not appreciable. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble goods unaccounted.Therefore, there was levy of duty to the extent of ₹ 2,32,365 (Rs.1,11,910 + ₹ 1,20,455) on both counts, followed by penalty to the extent of equal amount of duty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2000 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There was also penalty of ₹ 2,32,365/- on the Managing Director. However, the penalty on the Manag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5. It is noticeable from the finding recorded by the adjudicating authority that conduct of the appellant was good and accounts maintained were trustworthy, as is Revealed from para 12.02 of the adjudication order. He records that there was no doubt about the conduct of the appellant. But surprisingly in para 12.03, he imputed culpability of the appellant for no reason stated. In such circumstanc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X