2004 (4) TMI 361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Bidhan Chandra, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Both the appeals are being disposed off by a common order vide which penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh has been imposed on each of the appellants under the provision of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Nobody appeared on behalf of Shri R.L. Makhija. Shri D.H. Shah, learned advocate appears for Shri P.K. Jain and Shri Bidhan Chandra, lea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. l Lakh each." In respect of Shri R.L. Makhija, it is seen that he is son of owner of M/s. Goverdhandas Ramchand who had allegedly sent the goods to M/s. SKM Silk Mills for process. Inasmuch as his father died during the proceedings, show cause notice was issued to son for imposition of penalty. It is seen that the said appellants had taken a stand before the Adjudicating authority that he was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ence on record to show involvement of the said appellant in handling the business of his father during the period of his sickness. Shri P.K. Jain is employee of one concern M/s. B. Kantilal & Co. and M/s. Mohit Kumar & Co., who had allegedly sent the gray fabrics to the main processor. The said two firms have not been party to the adjudication proceedings and no show cause notice has been issued t....