2023 (6) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondent ORDER The appellant was imposed penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant firm M/s Swastik Polymers was shown as trading firm who involves in the trading of goods manufactured by M/s. Shubham Polymers. M/s. Shubham Polymers manufactures BOPP Bags, they were availing SSI exemption. The case of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... * AIA Engg. Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE - 2006 (195) ELT 154 (T) * CCE. Vs. Vijaya Steels Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (282) ELT 215 (Kar.)  2.1 He further submits that on the fact also the statements recorded of both Mr. Ashok Proprietor of M/s. Shubham Polymers and Mr. Bimal Kumar Dhareva, Proprietor of M/s. Swastik are exculpatory. They have categorically stated that wherever in the invoice, BOPP Films is w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t their case settled under SVLDRs. In the present appeal the appellant was a co- noticee and he has been penalized under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The contention of the learned counsel is that since the goods were not confiscated , the appellant cannot be imposed penalty under Rule 26. In this regard, on carefully going through the show cause notice and the Order-In-Original it was fo....