TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of Neminath Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). It is seen from the adjudication order that the case was made out on the basis of folding report, transport documents and miscellaneous papers as mentioned in the Annexure to the show cause notice. So, the submission of the appellant that the case was made out on the basis of statement, cannot be accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore I take up the appeals for hearing. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Shree Radhey Krishna Process Appellant No.1 was carrying out processing of MMF falling under Chapter 54 and 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on job work basis. On 21.06.2004, the Central Excise Preventive Officers visited the factory premises and examined the records. It was found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on Appellant No.1 and also imposed penalty of ₹ 50,000.00 on Shri Chandraprakash Lalchand Agarwal, Shri Premprakash Lalchand Agarwal, and Shri Sanjeev Premhans Agarwal Appellants No.2, 3 and 4, under the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the appellants. 4. Ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re available for arriving the demand of duty. It is also contended that the notice was issued to the appellant on 06.06.2007 while the investigation was completed on 04.12.2004 and therefore, the notice was issued after 2 years which is clearly beyond the normal period of limitation. 6. I agree with the submissions of the ld.Authorised Representative that this is a case of clandestine removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
