2001 (7) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Respondent. [Order]. -  The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the appellants are not lawful owner of the goods, in question and imposed a penalty of Rs. 28,000.00 under Rule 209 A of the Rules. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on information, the off....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n is that their unit is a manufacturing unit which they had established before the adjudicating authority. The goods were duly manufactured by them and got hand processed fabrics from Asha Calendar. He submits that they filed an affidavit to this effect before the adjudicating authority. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 3. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the respondents, sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellants the goods were consigned to Sh. Ravinder Kumar at Amritsar, who refused to take the goods. The basic issue is whether the appellants are owner of the goods. The appellants had not produced any evidence in respect of the goods, in question, to show that the goods belonged to them. Further, the appellants filed the claim before the adjudicating authority after four months from the sei....