9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the order in respect of appreciation of evidences or the interpretation of law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 2815 of 1999 -EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 60329/2020 - Dated:- 6-3-2020 - HON BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Rajeev Gupta Mr. Vijay Gupta, Authorised Representatives for the Respondent ORDER PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA This Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 32/CE/CHD-II/1999 dt. 06.08.1999 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944. VI) I also impose a personal penalty of ₹ 50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lac only) on Sh. Neelmani Khemka Managing Director of M/s Uma Synthetics Priya Textiles; and Karta of HUF concern of Manika under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. VII) I drop the penal proceedings against Mrs. Meera Khemka initiated in the show cause notice under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 1.2 Against the said order, Appeals were filed by the present Appellant and co-noticees namely M/s Uma Synthetics Pvt Ltd and M/s Priya Textiles Ltd. 2.1 Appeals filed by the co-noticees namely M/s Uma Synthetics Pvt Ltd and M/s Priya Textiles Ltd have been decided by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/61043-61044/2019-EX[DB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -noticees namely M/s Uma Synthetics Pvt Ltd and M/s Priya Textiles Ltd have been already allowed. Since the case against the present Appellant is based on the same sets of facts, allegations, findings and evidences relied upon are also of the same nature, their Appeal also needs to be allowed. 3.3 Arguing for the Revenue, learned A.R. submits that:- There are certain discrepancies in as much as certain facts were admitted by the Director of the Company and during search, a register was recovered showing description of the goods and it is not very clear from the description that these are cotton fabrics only. The Appellant have also used power in various activities which disentitled them from claiming the exemption in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in ageing the printed fabrics is legally permissible to the appellant. We also find that for the period 1993-1994, 1995-1996 and even prior to this period, the appellant was engaged in processing of cotton fabrics only. The appellant has maintained proper record of fabrics received, processed and sold in a systemic way where the contents and nature of fabrics is categorically mentioned. We are surprised that the Department did not take note of the fact that most of the fabrics processed by the appellant have mention of cotton fabric. There are no evidences to substitute the charge that the appellants were mainly engaged in the processing of man made fabrics where only 16 entries of man made fabrics processed by the appellant is available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
