9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.16/HAL/2012 dated 18.04.2012 whereby ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the order of lower adjudicating authority and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- against the appellant under Rule 26. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a case of shortage was booked against M/s.Apollo Machines Pvt.Ltd. for which the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant is looking after the finance and legal affairs of the company and the Director was present at the joint verification. In his statement he has stated that the appellant is looking after the finance and legal affairs of the company. The contention is that no notice has been issued against another Director Shri Ashok Jain, whose statement was recorded on the spot. 5. The contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or *[two thousand rupees], whichever is greater. 2[(2) Any person, who issues- (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; or (ii) any other document or abets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
