9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs on the appellant through the said Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2007 was beyond the proposal of imposition of penalty under Rule 27 on the appellant through said show cause notice dated 20.10.2004. Therefore, imposition of penalty of ₹ 75 lakhs on the appellant through the above sated Order-in-Original is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2596/2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Duty of ₹ 7,17,16,580/- from Shyam Traders, Lucknow, who were manufacturers of 'Shyam Bahar Gutkha'. The appellants were alleged to have supplied unaccounted packing material to the manufacturers M/s Shyam Traders. Therefore, appellants were called upon to show cause, as to why, penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 should not be proposed on them. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore he was satisfied that penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 was being imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of appeal states that the appellant was not put to notice to present their defense as to why penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 should not be imposed on them. They have also contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
