2005 (3) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 48/2003 (H-I) CE, dated 30-4-2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) has restricted the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 96ZQ(5), following the ratio of the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of Visen Fabrics v. CCE, Mumbai-III [2001 (137) E.L.T. 1339 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. The Revenue submits in the appeals that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owed in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Satavahana Rolling Mills [Final No. 1642/2004, dated 28-10-1004] and in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Vijay Textiles Ltd. Ors. [Final Order Nos. 250-258/2005, dated 18-2-2005]. 2.On going though the case laws relied on by both sides and on submissions made, I do not find any merit in the argument advanced by the learned SDR to accept the Mumbai Bench judgm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X