TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x. Appeal No.75251/15 - Order No. F/O/78704/2017 - Dated:- 29-12-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Hon ble Judicial Member Shri A. Sengupta Shri Indranil Banerjee, both Advocates for the Appellant Shri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.121/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/14 dated 19.11.2014 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals) Customs, Guwahati. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 04.02.2013 the Central Excise Officers of Jorhat visited the Lakwa Railway Station and found huge quantity of Raw / Dust Coal lying in the Station which was detained by them. In the subsequent visit, the Central Excise Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coal from the supplier from time to time. It is noted that the goods were supplied to the appellant without any Invoice on several occasions. Hence, the innocence pleaded by the Learned Counsel cannot be accepted. In this context, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below : 7. I find that at the time of seizure of the said coal, the appellant could not produce any document in support of payment of Excise duty and Clean Energy Cess on the seized coal which proves that the said seized coal were cleared without payment of respective duties in violation of the provisions of Rule 4,6,8,9 11 of the CER, 2002 and Rules 4,5,6,9 10 of the CECR, 2010. The appellant is a trader of Coal and it was their prime duty and resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and gravity of the case, I find that the RF imposed by the adjudicating authority is justified and legally tenable. Further, imposition of penalty under Rule 27 of the CER, 2002 on the appellant is also found to be legally justified since the said rule provides that breach of CER, 2002 where no other penalty is provided in the Rules/Act, is liable for penalty action which may extend to five thousand rupees and with confiscation of the goods in respect of which the offence was committed. I find that the appellant had been depositing/dealing with the non-duty/cess paid raw coal which makes them liable for penalty action in terms of Rules 27 of the CER,2002. I find that in the instant appeal, there are specific provisions in law for confiscati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
