9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Srivastava, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These appeals filed by an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944, partner of the firm, and Revenue, against the same order of CCE (A), The appeals are being disposed by this common order, after hearing both sides. 2. A case of removal of inputs, on which credit was availed, was made out on the assessee, as on the date of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner, adjudicated the case and, (i) did not uphold the liability of confiscation under Rule 173Q(2)(a) as proposed. (ii) Confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 1,51,44/- under Rule 57-I read with Rule 9(2) and Section 11A along with interest under Section 11AB. (iii) Imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) on the assessee. (iv) A penalty of Rs. 1,51,44/- was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty under Rule 173Q. (ii) Assessee wants the setting aside of penalty under Section 11AC and order of interest. (iii) Partner wants the setting aside of the penalty under Rule 209A. Hence the appeals. 3.1 After hearing both sides and considering the material, it is found - (a) demand of Rs. 1,51,44/- under Rule 57-I cannot be now challenged before the CEGAT. The same has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order under Rule 173Q(1) Rs. 25000/- arrived by Jt. Commissioner is restored. (c) Since it is a case of removal of inputs and demands of credit under Rule 57-I, invocation of Section 11A(1) proviso clause for duty and or Section 11AC penalty applicable only on duty determined cannot be invoked. Since no duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is required to be or determined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
