TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, as the aggregate value of their clearance was well within the limit of ₹ 3 crores in the financial year 2002-03. However, the same has not been taken into account by the first appellate authority. The matter requires re-examination - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/999-1001/2009 - ORDER No. 10718-10720/2018 - Dated:- 4-4-2018 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Hon ble Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri P. V. Sheth, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K. J. Kinariwala, AR ORDER Per : Mr. Devender Singh Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants were directed to make pre-deposit of ₹ 2,67,198/- by the first appellate authority. However, for failure to deposit the said amounts their appeals were rejected. The appellants went in appeals before this Tribunal after deposit of ₹ 2,67,198/-, the Tribunal vide its order dated 04.09.1998 set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and directed to decide the matter on merit. In his order dated 08.05.2009, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority in entirety against the appellant No. 1. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties on appellant No. 2 and 3 from ₹ 50,000/- to 10,000/- under Rule 26 of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. We find that the allegation of the Revenue is that there were shortages in the stock of finished goods and scrap on the day of the visit by the central excise officers. The shortages were admitted by the Power of Attorney holder and by Partner of the firm Shri Niranjbhai Kantilal. The contention of appellant is that the documentary evidence submitted by them has not been considered by the first appellate authority and there is no finding on the documentary evidence produced before him. In the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that there is no finding on documents submitted by the appellants in their defence. Besides, the documentation which has been submitted before this Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
