9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hapur. Therefore, they are taken together for decisions. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of MS bars and MS ingots etc. falling under chapter 72 of schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were appointed as franchisee of M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. through an agreement dated 19.07.2007. The main terms of agreement were that the appellants were eligible to use trade mark 'Kamdhenu' for sale of steel bars on payment of royalty charges to M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd.. The agreement required to pay one time charge of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs and monthly minimum royalty payment was Rs. 3.00 lakhs. Further the royalty was to be paid @ Rs. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,26,72,715/- was demanded and the said show cause notice also had proposal to impose personal penalty on the other two appellants. The appellant, contested the said show cause notice on the issue of time bar. The other two appellants also contested the proposals in the said show cause notice. The original authority did not appreciate such contentions made before him and confirmed the demand with interest and equal penalty. Further the original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs on Shri Rajendra Kumar Garg, Director and another personal penalty of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs on Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Director. Aggrieved by the said order above stated three appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the ld.Counsel for appellant. He ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of data retrieved by Government Examiner of Questioned Documents from the electronic devices recovered, it is established that the appellant had indulged in suppression of quantity of MS bars manufactured by them therefore the contention of appellant that the show cause notice is time barred is not sustainable. Further, the appellant has not strongly contested on the other aspects of manufacture such as consumption of raw material, consumption of electricity, transportation of goods and availability of customers to whom such goods were cleared, therefore we are of the opinion that the appellants have not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order. We therefore do not interfere with the impugned order and dismiss all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
