Case Law Details
Dipal Narendrabhai Shah Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bhavnagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
These appeals are directed against the Order-In-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed by the original authority under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The brief facts of the case are that all the appellants in the present appeals were allegedly involved in case of alleged clandestine removal made by M/s Pure Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The allegation of clandestine removal was mainly based on some diaries recovered from brokers and follow up action was taken upon various manufacturers mentioning in the said diaries of the brokers. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on among others present appellants under section 26(1) of Central Excise Rule, 2002. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeals and upheld the penalties, therefore, the present appeals.
2. Shri Sarju Mehta, Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that under a common investigation various case were made out against various manufacturers for alleged clandestine removal on the basis of diaries recovered from brokers. In two of the identical cases i.e. Shri Hari Steel Industries vide Final Order No. A/11053 – 11055/2022 dated 29.08.2022 and Shri Himanshu Nandalal Jagani & Ors vide Final Order No A/11082- 11089/2022 dated 01.09.2022 in respect of the similarly placed appellant including some of the same appellants of this case the penalties were set aside. Therefore, following the said two orders the penalties in the present case also not sustainable.
3. Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
