9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Panda, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against the order in appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the original order of the Assistant Commissioner directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,221/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act with interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Act, and imposing penalty of equal amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the recent decision of the Tribunal in M/s. BDH Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. (Appeals), Mumbai-I [Appeal No. E/1218/06] reported in 2008 -TIOL - CESTAT - Mum - LB = 2008 (229) E.L.T. 364 (T-LB). After going through the judgment, I am satisfied that the submission of the Jt. CDR is well founded and the appeal has to be dismissed. The Larger Bench has held that all types of refund claims have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow to warrant interference by the Tribunal.
5. As regards the penalty, the Commissioner (Appeals) has already reduced to Rs. 5,000/- which in the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be reasonable and therefore, the quantum of penalty does not require any further modification.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
