9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order, after following the principles of natural Justice. - E/1102-1103/2008-Mum - A/1787-1788/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri S.P. Mathew, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Nair, AC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER These 2 appeals are directed against order-in-appeal No. JAK(211)93-94/08 dated 5-8-2008. Since both the appeals are directed against the same impugned order, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The appellant company and the director of the company have filed these appeal against the imposition of penalties on them by the adjudicating authority and the same being upheld by the first appellate authority. 3. The brief facts that arise for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellate authority has recorded a finding which was nothing but an alternative submission; that penalty on the director is unwarranted; that facts of the present case are squarely covered by the radius decisions of Hon ble High Court of Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, Gujarat and various decisions of Tribunal. 5. Learned Departmental representative would reiterate the findings of lower authorities. It is his submission that the statements of the appellant s director and various individuals, the records of various vehicle movement register of dealers indicate that appellant was availing ineligible Cenvat credit based upon documents only and without receipt of the inputs. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority clearly recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent, I do not find any reason to interfere with the OlO dated 29-3-2007 passed by the respondent. The various case-laws cited by the appellants are not squarely applicable to this case, being factually different. 15. I also take up the appeal filed by Shri Ambadas Nagargoje, Director of M/s. Ambika Waste Management Private Limited along with this appeal. In that appeal also, I do not find any reason to interfere in the OlO dated 29-3-2007, as the penalty imposed on Shri Ambadas Nagargoje is minor as compared to the duty involved. 8. It can be seen from the above reproduced paragraphs that the first appellate authority has not discussed or recorded any findings of her own to hold that the appeals filed before her are to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
