9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.P.C. Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 08/2007(G)CE dated 29-6-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Guntur. 2. We heard both sides. 3. The appellants are manufacturers of toilet soap, soap for other than toilet purpose, stearic acid and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) examined the issue and held that he did not find any reason to interfere in the order imposing penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for violation of the Central Excise Rules. Thus, he upheld the imposition of penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be to file refund claim under Section 11B and the assessee should not take suo motu credit. 4.1 The learned Consultant, in the course of the hearing, fairly conceded that the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. v. CCE (Appeals), Mumbai-I - 2008 (229) E.L.T. 364 (Tri.-LB) wherein has been held that all types of refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isable goods produced or manufactured or stored, or (c) engages in the manufacture, production or storage of any excisable goods without registration, or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of the rules with an intention to evade payment of duty. In the instant case, none of the above offences was alleged and proved against the appellants. In fact, the appellants sought for objections before tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
