2017 (6) TMI 421

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondent ORDER M/s Kailash Traders is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 110/2013 dated 15.3.2015 whereunder a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on them under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the Order-in-Original No. 25/2012 dated 24.4.2012 passed by Assistant Commissioner has been sustained. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Central Excise officers of Headquart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate, Shri Kumar Vikarm and Revenue has been represented by Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar and Shri G.R. Singh, DRs. 4. The ld. Advocate for the appellant mentions that in case of such group matters, which had arisen out of common searches, the Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo adjudication vide Final Order No. 52349-52409 dated 9.3.2017 by observing that the impugned order suffers from various i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods. 5.1 From the facts on record and submissions of both sides, it appears that the appellant, M/s Kailash Traders willingly connived and colluded with the manufacturer M/s GIPPL in dealing with clandestinely removed goods namely sponge iron/MS ingots etc which the appellant knew were liable for confiscation under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder. There is no enough ....