2006 (1) TMI 549

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as challenged in this Appeal the order dated 13th July, 2004 [2004 (175) E.L.T. 857 (Tri.-Bang.)] passed by the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the appellant s appeal challenging the imposition of penalty and directing the Commissioner to redetermine the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act ) for the duty short-paid after 28th September, 1996. 2. The facts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder Section 11A of the Act and also penalty under Rule 173Q of the Rules. A sum of Rs. 97,358/- was the differential Excise duty and the penalty was imposed at Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules. The said orders were challenged in appeal and as aforesaid, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal. 3. Assailing that portion of the appellate order imposing penalty, the learned counsel for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 173Q of the Rules for the period prior to 28th September, 1996. However, the appellate authority set aside the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act for the period anterior to 28th September, 1996 and made it only prospective, as the aforesaid section was introduced by way of Section 76 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 33 o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X