9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or in the order in original. In the absence of which it is difficult to sustain the penalty equal to duty amount in the present case – Decided against the Revenue. - Appeal No. 3925 of 2010 SM(Br) - Final Order No. A/56464/2013-SM(BR) - Dated:- 20-5-2013 - Mr. Sahab Singh, J. For the Appellant: Mr. M.S. Negi, DR For the Respondent: Mr. Alok Arora, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Sahab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng penalty under Rule 25 (1)(a) and (b) of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority by order in original No. 20/2010 dated 23.2.10 in which the original adjudicating authority confirmed duty and appropriated the amount already deposited and also imposed penalty of Rs.1,13,222/- under Rule 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that order-in-appeal needs to be set aside and penalty is required to be enhanced to Rs. 1,13,222/-. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that they have filed cross objection and challenged the appeal on the ground that there was no ingredient mentioned in Section 11 AC proposed in the show cause notice and discussed by the original authority in order-in-original. Under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en mentioned either in the show cause notice or in the order in original. In the absence of which it is difficult to sustain the penalty equal to duty amount in the present case. I find that finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has considerable force and in the absence of any suppression or willful mis-statement collusion, it is difficult to invoke section 11 AC in the present case. I therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
