9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. Shri Jitu Motwani with Jas Sanghavi i/b P.D.S. Legal, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER P.C. : Central Excise Appeal No. 197 of 2007 was on board. However, it was brought to our attention by the learned Counsel for the Revenue that two other appeals being Central Excise Appeal Nos. 196 of 2007 and 106 of 2006 which are inter-related are required to be disposed of together. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03. The Commissioner (Appeals), for reasons set out in the order, was pleased to reduce the penalty from Rs. 4.50 lakh to Rs. 3 lakh. The Revenue aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal which, by its order dated 14-9-2005 was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Against that order, the Revenue referred an appeal to this Court which was number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee and reduced penalty from Rs. 4.50 lakh to Rs. 2.25 lakh. 6. Both the assessee and the appellant were aggrieved by the order of the CEGAT in two different appeals, appeal by Revenue was numbered as Appeal No. E/2500/05 which was disposed of by order dated 11-8-2006. The learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the Revenue. 7. The assessee's appeal was numbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier, the same Tribunal first disposed of Revenue appeal by order dated 11-2-2006 by holding that the penalty could not be said to be illegal. After having so held in the appeal preferred by the assessee, it reduced the penalty from Rs. 2.25 lakh to Rs. 5,000/-. In our opinion, therefore, both these orders will have to be set aside. 11. Then the question is whether the matter is to be sent back fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
