2009 (8) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arwal, SDR JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical) 1. There are six appeals before us, one of which is filed by ICCONOL Petroleums Private Limited against confirmation of demand of Rs. 49,46,839.00 under the provisions of Section 11A along with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty. 2. The other Appeals are filed by M/s. Krishna Marketing, M/s. Jay Enterprises, Shri D.P. Singh, Shri Tushar Shah and M/s. Blue Spot Agency respectively against imposition of penalties on them. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that ICCONOL Petroleums Private Limited dispatched the finished goods to various buyers including M/s. Krishna Marketing at Ahmedabad and M/s. Jay Enterprises, Rajkot. 4. Factory premises ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g, M/s. Blue Spot Agency and M/s. Jay Enterprises to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them. 8. The Order-in-Original No. Raigad/ADC/102/07-08 dated March 31, 2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirming the demand and penalty against ICCONOL Petroleums Private Limited and further imposing penalties on the other Appellants was challenged before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 9. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by Order dated June 25, 2008 directed ICCONOL Petroleums Private Limited to deposit 50% of the duty demanded and penalty imposed under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. ICCONOL Petroleums Private Limited filed a Modifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Departmental Representative reiterated the finding of the Adjudicating authority and further submitted that all the documents relied upon by the Department while issuing the show cause notice confirming the demand have already been furnished to the Appellants. 14. We have heard both sides. A specific query was put to the Ld. Departmental Representative as to whether the documents seized from the premises of the Appellants M/s. Krishna Marketing and M/s. Jay Enterprises, under the aforesaid Panchanamas have been supplied to the ICCONOL Petroleums Private Limited. We were informed that the same have been provided to the Appellants; however, no proof for the same was submitted. The learned Advocate appearing for ICCONOL Petroleums ....