9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority has indeed gone beyond the remand direction by adjudicating the matters pertaining to the other appellants in this appeal and has not adhered to the terms of the remand order. The matter requires to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in compliance with the remand order dated 20.10.2005 of this Tribunal and to pass a fresh order after giving the appellant a fair opportunity to defend themselves - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/690-692/2008 - Order No. 10721-10723/2018 - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Hon ble Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri P. M. Dave, Shri Amal Paresh Dave, Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid goods. Since it was Budget day and all clearances of any excisable goods are prohibited unless expressly permitted by the proper authority, the factory premises of M/s Vyas S. J. Sons at 166, Umeta was visited along with the panchas and their pre-Budget day declaration was called for and verified. In their declaration they had declared that their last invoice issued was No. 3 dated 30.05.98 and that the balance of stock as on that date was 32,000 branded bidis. On oral inquiry, it was found that M/s Vyas S. J. Sons Co had not got their invoice books for the year 1998-99 printed as yet and that all the clearances made by them after 1.4.98 were without any invoices. 2. Further, investigations were launched and statements of buyers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally, vide F. No. V.24/130/OA/98 dated6/7/98 on execution of B-11 Bond of ₹ 1,48,764/- and cash security of ₹ 40,000/- and the same have not been produced during the adjudication, therefore, ₹ 29,000/- out of the said amount is appropriated towards the value of the goods in terms of condition of B-11 Bond. I impose penalty of ₹ 11,000/- on M/s. Vyas S. J. Sons Co. u/s 173Q of CER, 1944 and ₹ 11,000/- is adjusted against the penalty imposed on M/s Vyas S. J. Sons Co., Umeta out of the remaining amount and thus the whole amount of ₹ 40,000/- deposited towards the cash security gets adjusted and appropriated. (ii) I order confiscation of matador Van No. GJ-7H-649 seized on 1/6/98 under Section 115 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER, 1944. Aggrieved from the said order of the adjudicating authority, the Revenue went in appeal before this Tribunal, but, filed only one appeal against M/s. Vyas Shantilal Jethalal Sons Co., Umeta. No appeal was filed against the dropping of demand issued to M/s Sanjay M Vyas and against Shri Mahendra S. Vyas. This Tribunal vide Final Order dated 20.10.2005 set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and remanded the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law. It was expressly mentioned that the appeals were allowed by way of open remand. It was also directed that the points urged for appeal before the Tribunal shall also be taken into consideration. The department did not file any appeal against dropping of the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y M. Vyas, Umeta. (viii) I also impose personal penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) under Rule 209A of CER, 1944 on Shri Mahendra Vyas, partner of M/s. Vyas S. J. Sons Co., Umeta. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the adjudicating authority has gone beyond the remand direction of the Tribunal by confirming the demand against M/s Sanjay M. Vyas, Umeta and by imposing penalty on M/s Sanjay M. Vyas, Umeta and enhancing penalty on Shri Mahendra S. Vyas, partner of M/s. Vyas S. J. Sons Co., Umeta. The contention is that since the department had not filed any appeal against the above mentioned dropping of demand/penalty against M/s S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
