1999 (7) TMI 696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant. D.K. Nayyar for the Respondent. ORDER Per S.S. Kang : These appeals are filed against common impugned order, therefore, all are being taken up together. In the impugned order penalty of ₹ 50,000/- each was imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Commissioner of Central Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... payment under KVS Scheme vide Final Order No. A/238/99 NB (DB) dated 7.4.99. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of Quality Fabricators & Erectors Vs. CCE, Baroda reported in 1999 (33) RLT 122 in the similar situation allowed the appeals filed by the persons who were held liable to pay penalty under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules. He submits that the Tribunal held that since the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts that under the KVS Scheme the dispute of M/s. Sitapur Sahkar Katai Mills Ltd. has been settled. He, further submits that the appellants were liable to pay penalty under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules and the separate penalties were imposed upon them and present appellants had not filed any declaration, therefore, they are not entitled to any benefit under the KVS Scheme for which only M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the portion discussion and findings. The adjudicating authority held as under :- "The role of various parties and their involvement in evasions is amply highlighted in the show cause notice and there is no need to reexamine the individual roles." 7. The adjudicating authority only relies on the allegation made in the show cause notice. No finding is given in the impugned order in....