2019 (9) TMI 396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) AND MR MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For The Appellant : Sh. S.P. Mathew (Advocate) For The Respondent : Sh. S.N. Gohil (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that a case of fraudulent availment of rebate of duty was made out, wherein the present appellant Sh. Mahesh Harlalka and Sh. Deepak Nathmal Kedia have acted as mediator in arranging the fraudulent rebate and fra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rbhai Bambharoliya Proprietor of Sh. Sairam International and consequential interest and penalty. 2. Sh. S.P. Mathew Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant namely, Mahesh Harlalka. He submits that penalties were imposed against appellant under Rule 13(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. He submits that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order in respect of three appeals of parties and reiterates the grounds of appeal in case of Revenue's appeal. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perusal of records. We find that penalties on appellant Sh. Mahesh Harlalka and Sh. Deepak Nathmal Kedia were impos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, he cannot be alleged with the contravention of any provision of Customs Act, 1962, therefore, this penalty is also not maintainable, hence the same is set aside. 5. As regard Revenue's appeal proposing recovery of fraudulent availed rebate, interest and consequential penalty against proprietor of Sh. Sairam International, we find that no proposal was made against Sh. Sairam International in t....