TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri G L Mohta, Associated Steel Industries, Vinayak Ispat, Sharda Ispat Ltd., Orange City Steel Industries P Ltd., Diganath Steel Ind & Engg. Works, Prabhu Steel Industries, Munish Forging, R K Steel Industries, Raju Steel Industries, Swetal Steel Industries Ltd., Sunvijay Rolling and Engg. Ltd. And Prakash Industries Ltd. ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : E/stay/59376/2013 - Vivek Steels The applicant is a broker. The allegation of the Revenue is that applicant has traded the goods under the challans which was recovered from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation when the goods entered their jurisdiction,. The contention of the applicant is that they have dealt with only four invoices which were having value of Rs. 10.64 lakhs only. Otherwise, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kumar Bhadoria E/stay/ 59381/2013 - Shri S N Jha E/stay/ 59382/2013 - Shri Sanjay Kumar Joshi E/stay/ 59383/2013 - Shri N K Gupta The applicant are seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed upon them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 3. As the applicants are the employees of M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. and working under the directions of Shri G L Mohta, who is director of main party, therefore, at this stage, we are of the view that penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is not imposable on the applicants. Consequently, the applicants have made out a case for complete waiver of penalties imposed upon them. Therefore, we waive the requirement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed upon them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The allegation against the applicants is that they have dealt with the goods sold by M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. in various capacity as the recipient of the goods on the strength of invoices issued by Vivek Steels, one of the appellants before us. 2. Heard the parties. 3. Considered the fact that in whole of the proceedings neither the statement of applicants were recorded nor applicants were issued summons for the proceedings. Further, it is not coming out from the impugned order what was the role of the applicants. Therefore, prima facie applicants have made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit. In these terms, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penal....