TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no merit and substance inasmuch as no question of law for interpretation by the High Court is involved and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed on this ground alone. - Central Excise Appeal No. 128 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2018 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Alok Dwivedi For the Respondent : Anjana Singh ORDER 1. The Central Excise Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal , New Delhi in Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009. 2. This appeal was admitted vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Verification report (RUD No.1) in the presence of the authorised signatory of the appellant-assessee and two independent witnesses and also checked the daily stock register. In the surprise visit, different quantities of Detergent cake of various brands were found packed in the carton boxes bearing the name of the manufactures as M/s Sadhvi Gramodyog Samiti, Umran, Kanpur-Dehat and M/s Manoj Kumar Gupta and Co., Chiraura, Kanpur Dehat besides goods bearing the name of the party as manufacturer. 5. A show cause notice (herein after referred to as 'the SCN') dated 14.06.2004 was issued to the appellant-assessee as to why: (i) 5367 cartons of Detergent Cake beairng the name of other manufacturer and 69 cartons of Detergent cake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated goods by making an payment of fine of ₹ 4,50,000/- on redemption. Penalty of ₹ 25,000/- was also imposed upon the appellant-assessee. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order-in-original dated 30.06.2008 passed in remand, the appelllant-assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur. The Commissioner vide order dated 30.09.2008 set aside the order of confiscation of seized goods and reduced the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to ₹ 5,000/- on the ground that the appellant-assessee had only failed to account for goods produced or stored by them properly in their statutory records. 9. The revenue challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
