9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -5-2017 - S. Muralidhar and Chander Shekhar, JJ. Shri Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Namrata Bharti, Advocate, for the Appellant. ORDER CM No. 20015/2017 ( for condonation of 66 days delay in filing the appeal ) : For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed. CEAC No. 9/2017 2. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act) against the final order dated 5th August, 2008 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Excise Appeal Nos. 2017-2018 of 2008. By the said impugned order, the CESTAT set aside the order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 2,760/-, both totally valued at ₹ 35,730/-. These were found in excess of the stock recorded in the RG-1 Register/Daily Stock Account. Seizures were also made from the premises of the main dealers of the appellant. 5. During the course of investigation statements were recorded of Mr. Pawan Prabhu, Proprietor of M/s. Devakikrishna Traders, Hubli; Mr. Varun Gupta, partner of the appellant; Mr. Avinash Baliga, Proprietor of Damodar Traders, Belgaum; Mr. Bharat Porwal, partner of M/s. Super Traders, Belgaum; Mr. Shashikant J. Porwal of M/s. Super Stores, Belgaum and Mr. Abdul Rashid, Proprietor of M/s. RK Zarda Stores, Belgaum. On the basis of the investigations, the SCN was issued to the appellant and others inter alia to sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 7. Reverting to the SCN in the present case which was regarding the goods seized of the value of ₹ 35,730/- from the premises of the appellant, on 22nd March, 2007, the Assistant Commissioner passed the adjudication order, ordering inter alia for the confiscation of the goods seized and for penalties of ₹ 3,89,034/- on the appellant under Section 11AC of the CE Act read with Rule 25 of the CE Rules. A penalty was also imposed on Mr. Pawan Prabhu. 8. Mr. Pawan Prabhu and the appellant filed an appeal before the CCE(A) who by the order dated 20th June, 2008, dismissed it. 9. Against the dismissal of the above appeal, both the appellants approached the CESTAT, which by the impugned order allowed the appeals. In the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
