2018 (12) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri D. Haldar, AC(AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent. ORDER Per Bench : Two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in- Original No.03/Commissioner/CE/Haldia/Adjn./2009 dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate, Kolkata. Revenue has also filed a Misc. Applicati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Fashion. The reasons cited by the adjudicating authority for non-imposition of penalty against the two co-noticee is that these EOUs are situated outside the jurisdiction of the Haldia Commissionerate. The appeal already filed by Revenue against the impugned order was allowed vide Final Order dated 14.05.2018. Against such decision the Department filed Misc. Application for ROM against the foll....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M/s. Spectrum Silk Mills and M/s. Marvel Fashion, ld. DR submitted that the adjudicating authority was in error in taking the view that no penalty can be imposed against these EOUs for the reason that they were situated outside the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate. He argued that the criteria to determine jurisdiction for adjudication is the place where the offence was committed. Since the offe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for adjudication is the place where the offence was committed. In view of the fact that the alleged offence has been committed within the Haldia Commissionerate, we find that the show cause notice, proposing penalty against the two co-noticees under Rule 26 is justified. 6. After going through the record, we note that the investigations undertaken by the Revenue has established that M/s. Monali....