9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) No.72/09 dt. 22.4.2009. Heard both sides. 2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the premises of the appellants were visited by the officers on 23.1.2004 which revealed that appellants have manufactured and sold some quantity of unprocessed fabrics under the invoice of M/s.G.M.Textiles which was a fictitious, non-existent unit. The proprietor of the appellant firm ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustained, no option has been given by the authorities below to pay reduced penalty of 25% of the duty involved in terms of proviso to Section 11AC and, therefore, they should be given the option now to pay the concessional penalty. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of K.P.Pouches (P) Ltd. Vs UOI reported in 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del.). 4. Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be extended now by the Tribunal requires to be accepted in the light of a decision of the Hon#ble High Court of Delhi in the case of K.P.Pouches (P) Ltd. cited supra . 7. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of as follows :- a) The appeal is rejected upholding the demand of duty and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. b) However, the appellant is given an option to pay penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
