TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee on the brief facts laid in the present appeal, are as under : (i) A Show Cause Notice dated 13.05.2016 was issued by the Revenue based on the visit of Officers of the Headquarters Preventive Unit, Chennai-IV Commissionerate to the factory premises of M/s. Priya Engineering (hereinafter referred to as 'PE'), wherein the Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017, wherein the penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was confirmed and thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai, who, vide impugned Order-in- Appeal No. 457/2017 (CTA-I) dated 12.12.2017 rejected the appeal thereby upholding the penalty levied by the lower adjudicating authority. Aggrieved, the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14.09.2012, the Proprietor of the appellant has categorically admitted the nature of the appellant's transactions with M/s. PE. Question Nos. 3 and 4 are very clear and categorical as to the modus operandi of the appellant itself. 5.1 On a perusal of the so-called statement of retraction recorded on 19.02.2015 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Headquarters Preventive Unit, Chennai-I Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... earlier rather than on the issue involved when admittedly, nobody asked for cross-examination or re-examination. Further, when the appellant offered its statement of admission/guilt vide first statement dated 14.09.2012, further investigation by the Revenue was stalled as there was nothing more to be done by the Revenue. 5.2 Further, the plea of the assessee as to the submission of bank statemen....