2017 (12) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No.AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-71-72-2014-15 dated 10/12/2014. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding confirmation of the demand of duty for clandestine removal of the finished goods during the period 08.04.2010 to 18.01.2014. It is on record that when the authorities visited the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd and equivalent amount of penalty of Rs. 2,85,325/-, while setting aside the penalty imposed on the authorised signatory. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the adjudicating authority indicates that the penalty proceedings initiated against the purchaser of so called clandestinely removed goods on the ground that they were not aware and that main appellant had issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....correctly penalized under the provisions and the impugned order requires no interference. 6. On careful consideration of the submission made by both sides, I find that the proprietor of the firm during the panchnama recorded at the time of visit of the officers has categorically admitted that there was removal of the finished goods without discharging of the appropriate central excise duty and ....