TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in all the appeals, therefore, all are disposed by a common order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Vira Scooters are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of various scooter parts. Search was conducted on 30.6.2005 by the official of DGCEI. On the basis of resumed documents, another search was carried out on 3.8.2005 on the premises of the co-noticees. On the basis of these documents, it was revealed that M/s.Vira Scooters had involved in manufacture and removal scooters parts without payment of duty. During the course of investigation, the statement of proprietors/authorized representatives of all the co-noticees were recorded wherein it has been admitted that they used to receive the goods of Vira brand from M/s.Vira Scoo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, it is the contention of the learned Counsel that as the charge clandestine removal of the goods cannot be dealt with, therefore, the penalty on co-noticees cannot be imposed. In that circumstance, the penalties on co-noticees are to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned AR submitted that although the proceedings against M/s.Vira Scooters abates, but penalty on co-noticees can be imposed as they have admitted in their statements they are involved in the receipt of the goods. 7. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 8. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the sole case of Revenue is that M/s.Vira Scooters were engaged in the manufacture of scooter parts and clearance 9/3rd value ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant firm. I note that the instant proceedings are not original proceedings but appellate proceedings. The liabilities were determined in the original proceedings. The Ld. Advocate has not adduced the statutory basis of claim for abatement of appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the claim and objection on such ground is vacated". 5. The above observations made by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shabina Abraham (supra) which is against the judicial proprietary and contrary to law laid down the Hon'ble Apex Court. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had no respect to the decision of the higher forum which clearly shows that he has done a grave error of law. 6. Further, I fi....