9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 15-7-2010 - Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.]. - This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 15-4-2009 passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -7-2006 confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed penalty. The said order was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 18-4-2007. On further appeal, the demand of duty of Rs. 80,493/- was upheld but penalty was set aside by the Tribunal with the following finding :- "I find that the credit was taken on the basis of documents. It is also noted that the amount involved Rs. 80,49 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills, 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 5. We are unable to accept the submission. Law laid down in Dharamendra Textile as well as in Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills is that mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was not applicable to every case of non-p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
