9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) have filed this appeal against order-in-Appeal No.179/CE/Appl/DLH-IV2010, dated 01.10.2010 passed by the C.C.E. (Appeals), Delhi-IV. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are second stage dealers registered with Central Excise Department. During the course of the investigations taken by the Directorate of General of Central Excise Intelligence against M/s. Bhagwati Trading Co. and M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules. The appellants challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order has rejected their appeal. 2. The Ld. Advocate submits that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable as in the statement they have mentioned about receipt of the goods as a second stage dealer along with the invoices. Since there is no identification mark of the manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the goods. Therefore, they have contravened the provisions of the Central Excise Rules and penalty has been rightly imposed by lower authorities. The Ld. DR also relied on decision of Tribunal in the case of VK Enterprises reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 513 (Tri. Del.) in which the imposition of equal amount of penalty was upheld by the Tribunal. 4. After hearing both the sides, I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the findings of the lower authority are sustainable and upheld. I also find that in the case of VK Enterprises supra, Tribunal has held that the penalty equal to the duty amount is imposable in cases invoices are issued without receipt of goods. I, therefore, find no fault in the order-in-appeal and uphold the same and reject the appeal.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
