9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of Revenue to examine Sh. Pankaj Agarwal as its witness in the adjudication proceedings. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 50678/2022 - Dated:- 3-8-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sh. Bipin Garg Ms. J. Kainaat, Advocates for the appellant Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant has been rightly imposed duty and penalty. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of specific information, preventive officers, of the Headquarter, Central Excise, Raipur had conducted searches at the factory and office premises of one M/s Pankaj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 11AC(1)(c) of the said Act. The aforesaid show cause notice was adjudicated vide order-in-original, whereby the demand of central excise duty totally amounting to Rs.7,95,239/- alongwith interest, was confirmed and a penalty of equivalent amount was imposed on the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority had also imposed penalty of Rs.7,95,239/- on the Director of the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to dismiss the appeal observing that the transaction under dispute has been found recorded in the seized private records of M/s PIL alongwith clearance of the consignment of M.S. Ingot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings, who has not been joined in the show cause notice. Thus, the whole proceedings are vitiated. It is accordingly prayed to set aside the impugned order. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- i) Manmeet Ispat Pvt. Ltd., vs., CCE, C ST, Raipur 2019 (368) ELT 1101 (Tri. Del.) ii) Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., vs. CCE F.O. No. 515464-51565/2019 (SM) dt. 23.10.2019 iii) Rooplaxmi Industries India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CCE F.O. No. 51591/2019(SM) dt. 30.10.2019 Wherein this Tribunal in similar facts and circumstances has allowed the appeal. 6. Learned Authorised Representative Ms. Tamanna Alam for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival contention, I find that there is no corroboration of the alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
