9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. ORDER This appeal is filed by M/s. Electronica Leasing & Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the financing of machines purchased by various customers. The appellants' case is that they had entered into an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 5 lakhs on the appellants. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order reduced the fine and penalty to Rs. 4,44,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order. 3. The ld. authorised representative appearing for the appellants submitted that in this case the appellants have simply financed the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese Rules were not stated in the show-cause notice and in the show-cause notice only the Section 9 is proposed which does not deal with the confiscation of the goods. He submitted that since the appellants are not the manufacturer, purchaser or registered dealer, they cannot be penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be set aside by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued to the appellants, it is a fact that the confiscation of the machines was proposed under Sec. 9 of the Central Excise Act whereas under the Order-in-Original the machines were confiscated by the Central Excise Authorities under Rule 173Q and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants were never told about the Rule 173Q and Rule 25 in the show-cause notice. This is also a fact that un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
