9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... None, for the Respondent. ORDER These three appeals by the Department arise out of same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 61-63/CE/AHD/2006, dated 31-1-2008. Three cross-objections are connected to these appeals. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. Heard the learned SDR and perused records. 3. The respondent's company is a manufacturer of excisable goods. They were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to that, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Vijay Kant Aggarwal, Director for the respondent-company and Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Hardeep Singh, authorised signatory of the respondent-company. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of the credit. However, taking note of the fact that the entire disputed amount except to the tune of Rs. 1,37,277/- was paid prior to issue of show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) and seek dismissal of the Department's appeals. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned SDR and perused the records. We have also gone through the grounds of cross-objections filed by the respondents. We find that common inputs have been used for manufacture of excisable goods and also in respect of non-manufacturing activity namely, galvanisation which r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rationale has been given to impose Rs. 2 lakhs as penalty. The prayer of the Department is to enhance the penalty to Rs. 2 lakhs from Rs. 1,37,277/-. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 1,37,277/- may not be required to be interfered with. Order of the original authority does not specifically indicate any omission or commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
