2022 (6) TMI 1211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri. R P Parekh, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR This appeal is directed against Order-In-Appeal wherein, in the case of appellant the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant was imposed with penalty of Rs.5 Lacs on the ground that the appellant has failed to account for the manufa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the imposition of Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, I find that the argument that the Chairman & MD had not 'physically dealt' with the goods for illicit removal, fails before the evidences gathered and collaborated with the documents recovered from the factory premises as well as the marketing office which prove beyond doubt the role of Shri Anil Dudalal Kaneria, Chairman &....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d uphold. From the reading of the above finding, I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has stated that the appellant had in possession the physical goods namely, Polished vitrified Tiles without being accounted for in Central excise records for clearing the same from the factory premises without issuance of Central Excise Invoice and without payment of Central excise duty. However, fro....