9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Hasija, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Both these appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals-III), Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the learned appellate authority has upheld imposition of penalty in the adjudication order under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The present proceedings were initiated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the goods were actually supplied by the present appellant M/s. V. K. Metal Works, the charges leveled against them for imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. With regard to the other appellant M/s. Kanpur Kashmir Roadways, he submitted that the allegation of non-movement of goods cannot be sustained, in view of the order dated 25.07.2018 (supra) and accordingly, imposition of penalty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, this Tribunal vide order dated 25.07.2018 has held as follows:- "6. On perusal of the documents submitted by the learned Consultant, I find that the consignment note issued by the transporter contained the reference of the invoice, quantity, description of goods etc. I also find that the transport documents, evidencing movement of goods from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above observations made by the Tribunal, the issue is cristal clear that in the present case, the goods were in fact supplies by the appellant M/s. V.K. Metal Works to M/s. Omega Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and the transporter M/s. Kanpur Kashmir Roadways was engaged for facilitating transportation of goods from the appellant's factory to the buyers destination. Hence, I am of the considered view tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
