9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2018 - Dated:- 19-4-2018 - Excise Appeal Nos. 50716, 50717, 50721, 50986, 51240, 51261 51099/2017 E/COD/50822/ 2017 50120, 50124 50122/2018 E/ROA/ 50119, 50123 50121/2018 E / 50717 / 2017-DBE / 50721 / 2017-DB, E / 50716 / 2017-DB , E / 50986 / 2017-DB, E / 51099 / 2017-DB, E / 51261 / 2017-DB, E / 51240 / 2017-DB, E / 51729 / 2017-DB, E / 51615 / 2017-DB, E / 51730 / 2017-DB, E / 51728 / 2017, DB RAVI LADDHA-Vs-C.C.E. S.T.-INDORE, JIJI INDUSTRIES LTD- Vs-C.C.E. S.T.- INDORE , OCEAN IMPEX-Vs-C.C.E. S.T.-INDORE , GAURAV MUNGAD- Vs-CGST C.E C.C- BHOPAL , OMPRAKASH MAHESHWARI-Vs- CGST C.E C.C- BHOPAL , VAIBHAV MUNGAD- Vs-C.C.E. S.T.- INDORE , RAVI LADDHA-Vs- CGST C.E C.C- BHOPAL , JIJI INDUSTRIES LTD- Vs-CGST C.E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of seized documents, a case has been made out by the department for wrong availment of cenvat credit and erroneous claim of rebate under DEPB scheme. The other noticees are also Director and suppliers. So, penalties have been levied upon them. Being aggrieved, all the appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. From the record, it appears that the show cause notice was issued against which the appellant has filed the writ petition No. 3847/2016 in the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, which was dismissed on 05.07.2016. 4. Still not being satisfied, the appellant filed the SLP (No. 23374/2016) before the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court on 6.11.17 passed the following order:- We are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of issuance of instant SCN and they did not even bother to file their preliminary reply within the said time limit as specifically directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. I thus fine that ample opportunities have already been extended to them in the case to file their written submissions and to defend their case; however, they have not bothered to observe the time limits and utterly failed to avail the same. I thus observe that the Noticee No. 1 and 2 are not interested in placing their defence on record and have circumvented various opportunities of defence extended to them. It is to reiterate that while issuing SCN, it was also categorically mentioned in the SCN that all the Noticees were required to file their written replies wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
