9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms, Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad [ CESTAT for short] dated 24th August, 2010 [2014 (311) E.L.T. 674 (Tribunal)], the present appeal is preferred by the Revenue, proposing the following substantial questions of law for our consideration :- (A) Whether in absence of direct evidence, the assessee can be held to be liable for payment of duty, int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in setting aside order imposing penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on the respondent under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002? 2. Heard learned Sr. Counsel Mr. R.J Oza and with his assistance, examined the papers. 3. The issues essentially revolves arou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- in the order-in-original which was confirmed by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. When challenged before the Tribunal, by its common order dated 24th August, 2010, deleted the said amount for not having found any material, much less substantive and cogent evidence establishing the alleged link of clandestine removal. 6. It was alleged that M/s. Chetna Zarda Company sold thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. As can be also further noted, there is no whisper as far as the present assessee-respondent is concerned in the evidence which were discussed by the Tribunal. Again, as can be noted from the orders of the adjudicating authorities, the role attributed to the assessee-respondent has not been believed by the Tribunal, for want of requisite material. 8. The entire issue is in the realm of facts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
