9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was appreciated. However, one more opportunity was granted to the appellant in the interest of justice, to make his submissions for the disposal of the impugned appeal. A clear warning in the said order was given that the said opportunity shall be the last chance for the purpose and irrespective of subsequent absence the matter shall be decided based on merits. In view of the said order and in view of the absence of the appellant today as well (despite the said order), I hereby proceed to decide these two appeals on merits. 2. The relevant facts in brief for the purpose are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. On the basis of intelligence that the goods have been manufactured and cleared by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proposing the recovery of the alleged short paid excise duty of aforesaid amount along with the interest at an appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty not only on the appellant company but on the directors as well. The said proposal has been confirmed by the original adjudicating authority vide order bearing no. 122/2016-17 dated 15.3.2017. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide OIA no. 10/2017-18 dated 24/1/2018. Being aggrieved impugned appeal was filed. 4. As already observed above, the appellant has been highly negligent while pursuing the impugned appeal which was initially filed with a delay of 10 days. The said delay was condoned vide order dated 26.6.2018. Since then till date despite several effective opportunities the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (as has also been reproduced in the order above). 7. Though the RG-1 register maintained by the appellant unit was showing nil stock of finished goods but for the reason above that the finished goods were found at the time of physical inspection and actually were seized and no evidence could have been produced by the appellant to falsify them to be the finished goods, the said entry in RG-1 register is held to be a false entry. No infirmity to that extent is found in the order under challenge. The adjudicating authority below has clearly noted that the ER-6 return as impressed upon by the appellant covers the period of April 2014-September 2014 which involves the period of seizure of 21.7.2014. I do not find any infirmity when the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
