TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Following the same, appeal s dismissed in present case also - appeal dismissed. - CEA No. 20 of 2019 (O & M) - - - Dated:- 21-2-2019 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Appellant-Revenue : Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 8.8.2016, Annexure P.3 passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short, the Tribunal ), claiming following s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in clandestine removal of the goods? viii) Whether the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration evidence and statements recorded by the investigating agency and has simply passed the order on conjectures and surmises? 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is a manufacturing unit engaged in manufacturing of iron and steel goods falling under Chapter heading 72 and 73 of Ist Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent unit is managed and controlled by two persons namely Sunny Garg and Kewal Garg. Apart from the respondent unit, these two persons manage and control other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mises of Sunny Garg and Kewal Garg. Thereafter, some statements were recorded. Show cause notice dated 13.10.2006 was issued to all the parties who were believed to be engaged in clandestine removal in order to evade excise duty. Statements of proprietors of the firms as well as other evidence was collected by the Investigating Agency and after giving due opportunity to the respondents, Commissioner vide order dated 5.6.2008 confirmed the duty as well as penalty against all the firms and their proprietors. Aggrieved thereby, six appeals were filed by the respondent units and their proprietors before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 8.8.2016, Annexure P.3, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. Hence the instant appeal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
