2009 (11) TMI 706

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his appeal of the Department, the short question to be considered is whether the respondent should be penalized under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule, 1944 as done by the original authority. The appellant is represented by the SDR, who reiterates the grounds of the appeal. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. Howeve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the lower appellate authority, it would appear that nothing was hidden from the department and that there existed a dispute as to the admissibility of the credit in question. This aspect was, unfortunately, not examined by the original authority. The authority merely imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on the assessee without citing any penal provision after observing that Section 11AC was not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X