9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Dubey (Supdt) AR, for Appellant(s) Shri Atul Gupta (Advocate) & Shri Harishikesh (Advocate), for Respondent(s) Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.59-60-CE/GZB/05 dated 09.05.2005 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs, Ghaziabad. Appeals are filed by Revenue. Since both the appeals are arising out of common order, they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-Appeal dated 12.04.2004 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the allegations in the show cause notice were not sustainable. Therefore, the demand of duty and penalty were not sustainable and also personal penalty on the other appellant was not sustainable. Therefore, he allowed the appeals. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue preferred appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the said quantity of goods involved Central Excise Duty of Rs. 5,28,738/- and held that the demand raised on the basis of register maintained by gate keeper is not sustainable. The demand of duty and penalty on account of said issue involving demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 5,28,738/- was held to be unsustainable by Learned Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned Order-in-Appeal. Aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
