2005 (4) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 209A. 2. I have heard both the sides and have gone through the record. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants during the period in dispute i.e. Dec. 97 to Nov. 99 were engaged in the manufacture of two wheelers i.e. motor cycles as well as scooters and parts thereof. They had been sending the parts during that period to the job .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd had been confirmed against the appellants. 4. Penalty under Rule 209A has been confirmed against the appellants. But in my view, the provisions of this rule could not be invoked against them, especially when in the SCN, duty demand was demanded from them on the ground of having not paid the same on the scrap generated during the machining of their parts, by the job worker. There is nothing on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X