2015 (12) TMI 1313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 5.3.2014 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial question of law:- '"Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in rejecting the appeal of the Department without discussing the arguments put forth and the relevant provisions of law regarding maintenance of records? 4. The facts, in short, necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein are that M/s Moonlight Auto (P) Ltd. manufacturer of auto components was visited by the Central Excise Headquarter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Rule 25 of the Rules on the company. Besides penalty of Rs. 20,65,497/- was imposed under Rule 26 of the 2002 Rules on Shri Ghansham Bassi-respondent director of the company. Feeling aggrieved, the company and the respondent-director filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 12.9.2007 (Annexure A-3) allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the adjudicating authority. Being dissatisfied, the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 5.3.2014 (Annexure A-4) dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. Hence, the present appeals. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the appeals of t....