9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the main appeal has been allowed on merits in favour of the appellant, the present proceedings are only in respect of confiscation of the goods valued at ₹ 87,17,157/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 81,17,157/-. The impugned order ordering confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same, is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.76464 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO.75329/2020 - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - HON BLE MR. S.S.GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR.P.VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri P. Shah, C.A. for the Appellant Shri T.Mondal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated at Gurgaon, Howrah, Bhiwandi and Chennai, for storage and distribution of various products, such as, lighting products, domestic appliances, medical equipments, electronic goods etc. in North, East, West and South India respectively. Consequent to investigations conducted by the Department, the demand for recovery of Excise duty was raised on the appellant vide show-cause notice No.38/2016-17 issued by DGCEI dated 21.06.2016 along with the proposal for imposition of penalty. The Ld.Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the issue involved in the present case has been subject matter of various proceedings that have been initiated by the Department against the appellant with respect to all its four warehouses situated all over India. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 4,05,95,957/- And Penalty under Section 11AC r/w Rule 25 and Confiscation of goods (i) Girish Mittal (ii) Rajiv Sharma (iii) Anand Shah Gurgaon Warehouse Seizure Notice dt.11.02.2015 Goods valued at ₹ 77,56,520/- seized 28.04.2016 April 2011 to August 2015 Duty- ₹ 6,34,27,937/- And Penalty under Section 11AC r/w Rule 25 and Confiscation of goods (i) Girish Mittal (ii) Rajiv Sharma (iii) Vijay Parihar Further, we find that all the aforesaid show-cause notices pertaining to the demand of duty including the one pertaining to the Kolkata warehouse, were taken up for common adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
