2013 (11) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Consequently, when the matter came today appellant is absent. That causes prejudice to the Revenue. 2. The consequence of the adjudication extracted from the impugned order is as under:- (a) Central excise duty amounting to Rs.9,39,10,915/- , Cenvat duty of Rs.6,97,49,640/-, National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) Rs.1,39,49,928/- Additional Duty of Excise (AED) Rs.83,69,957/-and Education Cess of Rs.18,41,390/-] shall be payable as detailed in Annexure A2 to the SCN and order recovery of the same from M/s. KPPPL under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall be done. (b) Interest at the appropriate rates on the demand shall be recoverable from M/s. KPPPL under Section 11 AB(presently Section 11AA) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (l) Penalty of Rs.25,000/- on Shri Sandeep Oberoi,Manager, M/s. Om Shanti Logistic Services P. Ltd., Mumbai, Noticee No.10 was imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. (m) Penalty of Rs.25,000/- on Shri Sandeep Oberoi, Director, M/s. GMT Logistic Services P. Ltd. Mumbai, Noticee No.11 was imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. (n) Penalty of Rs.10,000/- on Shri Kshma Shankar Singh, Manager, M/s. Shree Murugan Clearing and Forwarding Agency, CSTM, Mumbai, Noticee No.12 was imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. (o) Penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- on Shri Shashikant Chaurasia, Noticee No.13 was imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. To examine the allegation in the show cause n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants to find out whether any cogent evidence is available to interfere to the finding of the ld. Adjudicating authority as to clandestine removal by the appellants and others instrumental to the clandestine removal. The appellants connected to the clandestine removal whether were consciously and deliberately made so, record reveals that none of the grounds convince to hold that appeals of appellants are merited appeal. Adjudication findings have been based on evidence. Therefore, inference thereto is not desirable. Goods found at different places were without payment of duty. Documents gathered during enquiry proved clandestine removal of the goods. There were several considerations applied by the ld. Adjudicating authority in page 95 o....