9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolving the role of appellant in this matter. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The penalty provisions were correctly invoked to impose penalty on him. There are no reason to set aside such a reasoned orders for the imposition of penalty. However, the appellant being an individual and considering overall facts of this case, the penalty imposed on the appellant reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. Appeal allowed in part. - EXCISE Appeal No. 10269 of 2019-SM - A/10334/2022 - Dated:- 12-4-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Sarju Mehta, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri G. Kirupanandan, Supdt (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal was filed by Appellant against the Order-In-Appeal No. BHV-EXCUS-000-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 on Appellant. By the order-in-original dated31.05.2017, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and penalty. He also imposed penalty of ₹ 85,000/-on both Appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), and Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Shri Sarju Mehta, learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that appellant had neither purchased nor dealt with the alleged goods, that the appellant acted as broker only, therefore the appellant is not liable for penalty under Rules 26. In similar case of the Appellant, the Hon ble Bench al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 556/2019 dated 21.08.2018 and Final Order No. A/12258/2021 dated 17.06.2021 of this Hon ble Tribunal are not applicable in this case and same is distinguishable because in these cases the manufacturer has contested the thirdparty evidences produced by the revenue. Further, there was no admission of any commission and omission by the manufacturer viz., M/s Bansal Castings Pvt. Limited. The Cross Examination sought by the manufacturer was also not granted. However, in the present case the manufacturer viz., M/s Chamunda Rolling Mills Pvt. Limited, have not disputed the third party evidences viz., diaries, notes, chits etc. recovered from the Appellant. Further the main noticee viz., M/s Chamunda Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. have not filed any appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
