9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, CA (52842/16) - for the appellant Shri H.C. Saini, D.R. - for the respondent Per Bijay Kumar: The present order disposes off the above four appeals filed by the appellant against a common adjudication Order No. 19-20/PR. COMM/CEX/BPL-1/2016 dated 31.3.2016, wherein a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed upon each of the appellant, viz. (i) Shri Ajay Goel (ii) Shri Anant Bomb and (iii) Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons in question. Further, the order is based on the third party statement without any corroborative evidence. That there is no dispute that the goods were cleared by the appellant but the allegation that those are diverted en-route to have been not investigated and discussed by the ld. Adjudicating authority. Also that the transactions with M/s Ujala Electricals Ltd. by the banking channel and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arh-I Vs. Mini Steel Traders - 2014 (309) ELT 404 (P&H) and the decision of Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Surya Ispat Udyog - 2017 (358) ELT 476 (Tri.-Chan.). Therefore, the ld. Advocate is of the opinion that there is no case of penalty which has been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 26 ibid. from the above ground. 3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterated the fact contai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3.2007. Also, the ledger submitted by the noticees appears to have been not considered by the ld. Adjudicating authority which, as per the ld. Advocate, is a crucial piece of evidence to prove the innocence of the appellant. It also settled by the judicial decision of Hon'ble Haryana High Court and this Tribunal as discussed above, the penalty cannot be imposed for the period prior to 1.3.2007, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
