2018 (4) TMI 1444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nical) Shri Manish Agarwal & Shri Javed Khan, Advocates for the Appellants Shri S K Bansal, AR for the Respondent Per: Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra: The present appeal is filed against the order in appeal No. 54/2016 dated 31.10.2016. This is second round of litigation.Earlier the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 257/2012 dated 6.3.2012 has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r section 11AC may also be re-determined accordingly. While determining and communicating the penalty the adjudicating authority should give the option to the Respondents that if duty, interest and 25% of the duty amount as penalty are paid within thirty days of receipt of the order, that will be in full discharge of the penalty under section 11AC of the Act." 2. This is the allegation of the l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. With this background, we heard Shri Manish Agarwal, Shri Javed Khan and Shri S K Bansal, learned representatives for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. From the record, it appears that in the first round of litigation, Adjudicating authority quashed the show cause notice. Against that order, the Departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entioned on the Lorry Receipts as per the chart. Some names are M/s. R S Company; M/s. R S & Company; M/s. R S Industries and so on. According to the Department, all Lorry Receipts belong to the appellant so demand was raised against the appellant. No other corroborated material / evidence was brought on record. 9. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appea....