CONTINENTAL CEMENT COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals are filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 8.9.2009 in Excise Appeal No. 3407 of 2004 & 3408 of 2004 as well as the order dated 15.2.2010 CCE v. Continental Cement Co., [2012] 21 taxmann.com 188 (New Delhi -Cestat) passed in applications No. 206 & 207/2009 passed by Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee is a private limited company and during the assessment year under consideration, was engaged in the manufacturing of ordinary Portland Cement, which was subject to Central Excise Act, 1985. The Department received an anonymous complainant indicating therein that during the period 9.2.1993 to 27.9.1995 about 3839.350 MT, ordinary Portland cement was illegally sold which involved central excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,20,154/ -, by using parallel documents like GP 1s, invoices, challans, Bills, cash memo and GRs, etc.

(2.) AFTER receiving the anonymous complainant along -with copy of the said documents, Department has issued notice to the appellants and finally confirmed the demand to the tune of Rs. 7,20,154/ - under the erstwhile Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and also imposed penalty to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/ - under Rules 9(2) and 173Q as the same stood at the relevant time read with Rule 209 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also imposed penalty of Rs. 7,20,154/ - in terms of Section 11AC of the said Act. Besides penalty to the tune of Rs. 3,65,000/ - under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, penalty was also imposed against each of the Directors namely Shri Ajit Kumar, Shri Jagmohan Goel and Smt. Kamlesh Tayal. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were allowed vide order dated 29.3.2004. Not being satisfied the Department has filed appeals before the Tribunal, who ex parte has allowed the appeals filed by the Department. The recall applications were also rejected by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved the appellants -assessee have filed the present appeals.

(3.) WITH this background, heard Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for appellant in Central Excise Appeal Nos. 228 of 2010 and 126 (defective) of 2010; and Sri Krishna Agarwal the learned counsel for the appellant in Central Excise Appeal Nos. 528 of 2010 and 529 of 2010. Sri R. C. Shukla, learned counsel for the department. All the appeals are interconnected, so the same are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.