9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, Runners and Risers classifiable under sub-heading No. 7206.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 7-9-2001, the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants factory and verified the stock. The central excise officers detected the shortage of inputs and fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice and there is no material for clandestine removal of the goods and, therefore, imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules is not warranted. He relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Supreme Industries Ltd. v. CESTAT, New Delhi reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 187 (M.P.) and the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les. Clause (d) of Rule 25 of the said Rules provides imposition of penalty for contravention any of the provisions of the rules or notifications issued under the said rules with intent to evade payment of duty. The adjudicating authority observed that there is no contravention of provisions of Rules with intent to evade payment of duty. So, penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules cannot be imposed. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
