9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral)]. - Challenging the common order of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad ["CESTAT" for short] dated 24th August, 2010 [2014 (311) E.L.T. 674 (T)], the present appeal is preferred by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ["Act" for short]. 2. To briefly state the facts - the Directorate General of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. This was adjudicated upon by the Joint Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise in order-in-original, where he imposed duty and penalty on the companies and its parters. When challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), it confirmed such an order. 4. The Tribunal, when approached by the appellant, by its common judgment and order dated 24th August, 2010, deleted the penalty as well as in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in not recording the submission made by the Departmental Representative at the hearing of the appeal and giving finding thereon in the impugned judgment?" (D) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in setting aside order imposing penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- on the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the only dependence of the Revenue is on two statements of representatives of the distributors - Messrs Dharmesh Enterprises and that of Messrs Nagindas & Sons found no direct evidence of those who received the final products through Messrs Kripa Tobacco Marketing and in absence of any direct and positive evidence establishing charges of clandestine removal by Messrs Chetna Zard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
