TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchana Pandey Tiwari, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar, Molasses classifiable under chapter heading No. 17.01 and 17.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 12-9-1989, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory and verified the stocks and found shortage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in 2006 (206) E.L.T. 677 (Tri.-Del.). He also submits that the show cause notice was issued on 25-9-89 and photocopy of this notice was served on 25-11-2004 and there is no allegation of clandestine removal of the goods and therefore imposition of penalty is not justified. 3. Learned Joint CDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the show cause notice by the appellant is not accepted. Further, the shortage was detected by the Central Excise Officers and no application for remission of duty was filed by the appellant. The contention of the learned Advocate that the case relates to 1989 and the personal hearing was fixed in the year 2004 and due to long delay they failed to produce any evidence in these matters. I find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
