2003 (9) TMI 660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ]. In this appeal which has been directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the Revenue has only contested the dropping of the penalty on Shri R.C. Gupta, partner of the respondents. 2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. On account of shortage of the inputs detected in the factory of the respondents firm, the duty involved of Rs. 1,11,138/- was deposited by them on 3-10-200 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the duty and imposition of penalty on the respondent firm is concerned, the Revenue is quite satisfied. The grievance of the Revenue relates to that part of the impugned order, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the penalty on Shri Rohit Gupta, partner of the firm. But strangely enough Shri Rohit Gupta, had not been arrayed as respondent in the appeal, only the firm had been made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X