9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeds, etc., and therefore, the said allegation is not sustainable. Personal penalty on the other appellant under Rule, 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- Since there was no confiscation of goods, personal penalty of ₹ 13 lakhs imposed on the other appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - E/2837 & 2838/2011-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NOs. 71591-71592/2018 - Dated:- 13-7-2018 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Chhibber (Advocate) Shri Sita Ram (Consultant) for Appellant(s) Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (AC) AR for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Above stated two appeals are taken together for disposal since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd interest was paid during compliance to Order of Stay passed by this Tribunal. He has submitted that the confirmed of the demand of ₹ 13,02,885/- included demand of ₹ 6,19,602/- on account of parallel invoices and the balance was on account of discrepancies between the recorded manufacture of the goods and recorded quantity of goods computed on the basis of inspection certificates issued by the purchaser and also on the basis of few GRs which did not have matching invoices in the record of the appellant. The said confirmed demand was also has one component where there were allegations that appellants clandestinely supplied goods to V.K. Industries. The appellant submitted that in respect of the demand confirmed related to para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invoices did not match and that could be because of the error on the part of one who has issued the GRs. In so far as supplies to V.K. Industries is concerned he has submitted that the allegation in the show cause notice is that the appellant has clandestinely removed goods to V.K. Industriesand that however, V.K. Industries has issued the goods manufactured out of said allegedly clandestinely procured goods through regular invoices. He has submitted that no flow back of financial transaction has been established in respect of said allegations and, therefore, the said allegation is also hit by ruling by Hon ble High Court referred to above. In respect of personal penalty on the other appellant under Rule, 26 of Central Excise Rules, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
