TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent ORDER [Order Per : M. V. Ravindran] All these appeals are directed against the order-in-original No.07/2010-Adjn(Commr) CE dated 23/12/2010. Since all these appeals are directed against the very same impugned order-in-original, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The appeals that are taken up for consideration are as under:- Sl No. Appeal No. Name of the party Appearance 1. E/658/2011 T. Venkateshwara Rao None 2. E/694/2011 Somakanth Multi Tech Pvt Ltd None 3. E/743/2011 Sudhir Kothari, Prop Metal Marketing Agency Mr. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy 4. E/744/2011 Dilip Kothari, Prop Metal Udyog Mr. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy 5. E/904/2011 Ajay Vyas, Prop Nara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants are before us. 4. As regards the appeal filed by Shri Venkateshwara Rao and SMTPL, we find that these two appellants are unrepresented today before the Tribunal. Both the appellants have sent a letter seeking adjournment of the matter on the ground that the advocate is busy. We find that these matters are coming up for disposal regularly before the Bench and are of 2011. Despite so many times the matters were listed for disposal, the appellants sought adjournment on some pretext or other which was extended. It seems that both the appellants are not serious in prosecuting the appeals. Hence their appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. 5. The learned counsel appearing for Mr Sudhir Kothari and Dilip Kothari submit that pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that there is no allegation against this appellant as to how he was associated in transportation of the goods in any manner and the appellant was in the knowledge that the goods are liable for confiscation. He would submit that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE Vs Ramesh Kumar Rajendra Kumar & Co [2015(325)ELT 506(Bom)] has held that for imposition of penalty under Rule 209 A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 requires that the person should have acquired possession of any excisable goods with knowledge or belief that the goods are liable for confiscation under the Act or the Rules. He would submit that the impugned order be set aside. 7. As regards the appellant Dhiran Transport Corporation Ms Spoorthi soug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce forthcoming from the records, we find that there is element of collusion by these three trading firms with SMTPL with intent to evade duty. It is the submission of the learned counsel for these appellants that there is no proposal for confiscation of the goods in the notice and they have not acquired the possession of the said goods in any way to impose penalty on them under Rule 26. For this proposition they were relying upon the larger bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tube of India Ltd (supra) and the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Rajendra Kumar & Co (supra). 7. We find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India Ltd has only interpreted provisio....