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

....R Rajesh Chibber for the Appellant. 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 Rs. 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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....smissed as withdrawn in view of the payment under KVS Scheme vide Final Order No. A/238/99 NB (DB) dated 7.4.99.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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scussed their role. He, further submits 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. We have perused the impugned order 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 findi....