TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less comparable to the facts and circumstances involved in M/s. S.A. Enterprise case (2015 (10) TMI 1349 - CESTAT KOLKATA). In these circumstances, considering that the applicant had deposited ₹ 5.00 laks during adjudication, the offer to deposit further ₹ 20.00 Lakhs seems to be reasonable at this stage. Consequently, the appellant (1) M/s. Ceebuild Co. Pvt. Ltd. is directed to deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 480/12) and personal penalty of ₹ 10.00 Lakhs on Shri Sanjiv Kabra (Appeal No. 481/12) and ₹ 10,000/- penalty under Rule 25 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (Appeal No. 484/12). 2. The Ld. Consultant Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, assisted by Ld. Advocate Shri Arijit Chakraborty submitted that the demand has been confirmed against the applicants on the ground that during the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, they have already deposited an amount of ₹ 5.00 Lakhs. On the instruction of their client, he offers to deposit a further amount of ₹ 20.00 Lakhs. 3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner and made sincere attempt to distinguish the facts in the present case to the one in S.A. Enterprise case. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. Prim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
