TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/70609/2017-EX[SM], E/70610/2017-EX[SM] - Final Order No. 71064-71065/2018 - Dated:- 4-5-2018 - SHRI ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sharad Chandra Tewari (Consultant) tor the Appellant (s) Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (AC) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR Present appeals are directed against common impugned Order-in-Appeal No.GZB-EXCUS-000-APP-0050-0051-17-18 dated 29.05.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs Central Excise, Appeal-II, Noida. 2. Since both appeals are arising out of impugned order-in-appeal, which is a common order, the above stated two appeals are taken together for decision. One appeal is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of ₹ 25.00 Lakhs made by the manufacturer appellant. The show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 29.06.2015 and the demand was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed. Aggrieved by the said order both the appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner(Appeals). Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) decided both the appeals through common impugned order-in-appeal wherein he did not interfere with the said Order-in-Original dated 29.06.2015 through which in addition to confirmation of demand, penalty of ₹ 5.00 Lakhs was imposed on Shri Vimal Sharma under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal appellants are before this Tribunal. 4. Heard the Id. Counsel for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fastened on the persons. He has submitted that except confessional statement there is no corroboration relied on by original and first appellate authority for fastening duty liability and imposing penalties on both the appellants in the present case. 5. Heard the Id.AR, who has supported the impugned order-in-appeal. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records I find that the original and first appellate authority have relied only on the confessional statement without having any material to corroborate the same. Therefore in view of the precedent decision of this Tribunal in the above-stated case of Portland Cement (I) Ltd. (supra) I hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. I therefore set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
