9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment counsel for the revenue. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1944 Act) against order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- i) & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urposes, CENVAT credit was not admissible. Demand was accordingly raised which was upheld by the Tribunal. Apart from the demand of duty, equal amount of penalty was also imposed under section 11AC of the Act. On appeal, the amount of penalty was reduced to Rs.1 lac which has been put in issue in this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Only conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, penalty had to be at the rate mentioned therein. 7. In view of above, there being patent error in the order of the Tribunal, the order to the extent of reducing penalty to Rs.1 lac is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits on the issue of penalty in accordance with law. The parties will appear for further proceedings before the Tribunal on 20.12.2010. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
