2005 (9) TMI 546

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant. Shri Vimlesh Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  The challenge in the present appeal is to the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under the provisions of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The manufacturer M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries are engaged in the manufacture of plastic, moulded parts of domestic mixer falling un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ersons including the appellant of violating Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. In the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, penalties of various amounts have been imposed on various purchasers. Hence this appeal. 3.  Shri R. Nambirajan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant states that the finding given by the adjudicating authority lacks precision. He would argue that neither ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant. Statement of the co-noticee is binding on the adjudicating authority. 4. We have considered the submission made by both sides. When we go through the provisions it is clear that to attract Rule 209A it should be established that any person who acquires possession or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing or keeping or purchasing any excisable goods which he know....