2001 (10) TMI 1088

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. Shri Hitesh Shah, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, dated 24-10-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 28-8-99 imposing penalty under Rule 173Q of the Rules but reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000/- o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsultant has contended no penalty could be legally imposed under Rule 173Q of the Rules on the appellants, but only penalty under Rule 226 of the Rules could only be imposed for non-accountal of the goods. He has also contended that the penalty on Shri Gurmeet Singh Bhatia, partner of the firm could not be imposed for having not committed any act or omission under the Central Excise Act. Therefor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n filed not by him but only by the firm M/s. Chirag Sanitary Products. The argument of the ld. Consultant that in the grounds of appeal it had been mentioned that no penalty on Shri Gurmeet Singh Bhatia, partner could be imposed and that the impugned order in that regard, is illegal, therefore, the appeal must be taken to had been filed by him also, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X