9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 - Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member For the Appellant Shri M. Karthikeyan, Adv., Shri J. Shankar Raman, Adv. For the Respondent Shri S. Govindaraj, AC (AR) ORDER Per D.N. Panda None present for the respondent in appeal E/00304/2007 filed by Revenue against M/s. Sree Uma Parameshwari Mills Ltd. 1.2 Learned departmental representative brings out that earlier when M/s. Sree Uma Parameshwari Mills Ltd. was in appeal No.E/00378/2007 that appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. He says that Revenue has been aggrieved because as against duty demand of ₹ 83,37,544/-, there was a levy of penalty of ₹ 78,37,548/- under section 11 AC of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said appellant and marked for identification as 1. The unaccounted raw material resulted in manufacture of unaccounted finished goods in the hands of M/s. Sree Uma Parameshwari Mills Ltd. Such unaccounted goods cleared were under the cover of conversion charges and no excisable invoices were issued. Unaccounted Monetary transaction were also found out by investigation in this regard and incriminating documents seized from M/s. Sree Uma Parameshwari Mills Ltd, revealed that there was discrepancy in the accounts of both the parties and that could not be reconciled before investigation nor before adjudicating authority, Therefore breach of law was made. Accordingly levy of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was made on that concern. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Balaji Trading Company Ltd., Guntur, established unaccounted deal of this appellant made to supply the goods to the manufacturer M/s. Sree Uma Parameshwari Mills Ltd. The adjudicating authority has elaborately discussed the material evidence supporting investigation case in para 72 and 73 of his order. 5.4 There is nothing in the grounds of appeal to contradict the investigation result and also the adjudication conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority to the extent of on this appellant for which its appeal is dismissed. 6.1 So far as appeal of M/s. Radha Textiles (P) Ltd. is concerned, it had faced penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-. There was an allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
