2009 (11) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....araj, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M. Ravi Rajendran, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - These matters arise before us for the second time. Vide Final Order Nos. 310-313/2005, dated 3-3-2005, this Bench had remanded these matters for readjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the light of that Authority's Order No. 148/2004 (H) (III) C.E.,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es : (1)     Duty of Rs. 3,33,000/- found to have been evaded by the main appellant M/s. Dhariwal Tobacco Pvt. Ltd., (2)     Penalty of Rs. 1,32,000/- under Rule 173Q in lieu of confiscation. (3)     Penalty of Rs. 1,64,500/- under Rule 173Q. (4)     Penalty of Rs. 10,000 on Mrs. Sobha Dhariwal u/s. 115 of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the penalty imposed on M/s. Rafiq brothers. 3. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the present appellants is that vide Order-in-Appeal No. 148/2004, dated 27-9-2004, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had given detailed findings as to how the allegation of clandestine removal of excisable goods by DTPL was not substantiated. He submits that the said order had become final in v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that the charge of clandestine removal of 200 cartons of finished goods, gutkha by DTPL using Invoice No. 87/2005, dated 20-8-2005 a second time was not substantiated. She also held one of the co-noticees who had filed an appeal before her not liable to penalty under Rule 209A on the ground it had not dealt with excisable goods which it had reason to believe were liable for confiscation. The abo....