9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. P.S. TEJI JJ. CEAC 29/2018 & CM APPL. 26802-26803/2018, CEAC 30/2018 & CM APPL. 26866-26867/2018, CEAC 19/2018 & CM APPL. 26530-26531/2018, CEAC 20/2018 & CM APPL. 26532-26533/2018, CEAC 21/2018 & CM APPL. 26534-26535/2018, CEAC 22/2018 & CM APPL. 26559-26560/2018, Present: Mr. Rajesh Rawal, Adv. for appellants. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent in Item Nos.46, 52, 53 & 70. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel for CBIC with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Adv. for respondents in Item Nos.47, 51, 68 & 69. Mr. Amit Bansal with Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Advs. for respondents in Item Nos.50, 54, 64, 70 & 71. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL) 1. The question of law urged in these appeals under Section 35G of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts appear to have been misappropriated even though paid by them. It is not disputed that the amounts were not debited from the assessees' bank accounts; rather, they claim that these amounts were periodically deposited in cash with the bank. The Adjudicatory Authority - and later the Appellate Authority rendered concurrent findings of fact rejecting the assessees' explanations and confirming the duty payable for the extended period. In addition, penalty was imposed. In these circumstances, the assessees approached the CESTAT which vide the impugned order rejected all their appeals through a common order. 3. It is argued on behalf of the assessees that the invocation of the extended period in the given facts and circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue relies upon the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Aafloat Textiles (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (235) E.L.T. 587 (S.C.) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Golden Tools International v. Joint DGFT, Ludhiana 2006 (199) E.L.T. 213 (P&H) which was apparently affirmed in Golden Tools International v. Joint DGFT, Ludhiana 2013 (293) E.L.T. A57 (SC) by the Supreme Court. It was urged that the appellants were given every opportunity to establish that they were innocent parties but made no attempt to present acceptable evidence. 4. This Court is of the opinion that the concurrent findings of fact rendered in this case, were in order, given the circumstances which appear on the record. All the appellants stated i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
