2010 (3) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it cannot be said that any material or stock of the finished product had been removed out of the factory premises clandestinely. - 30 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2010 - CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar. Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Sr.Standing Counsel For The Appellant. Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate For The Respondent. AS .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tine removal of the cenvattable inputs and accordingly, impose a penalty of Rs.70,048/-. An appeal was filed by the manufacturer which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order Annexure A-2. The aforementioned orders were challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal which held that there was no material to show that there was any clandestine removal and hence set aside the demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... removal, therefore, the case of the respondent is fully covered by the judgement of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhaina vs. Fas Kusm Ispat (P) Ltd., reported as 2009 (240) ELT 13 (P H), wherein it has been held that once substantive findings are against the Revenue, then the question of imposition of any penalty does not arise. In view of the above, we find no merit in this ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X