2013 (10) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en revised. No one appears for the appellant to press this appeal. 3. We have gone through the record and considered the facts involved. We heard learned counsel Ms. Sejal Mandavia for the respondent Central Excise. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, we formulate following substantial question of law. "Whether CESTAT, Ahmedabad was correct in not exercising its powers vested i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... availed on the goods transported by the appellant should not be denied and as to why the penalty should not be imposed. Similar show cause was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under the provisions of Central Excise Rules read with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant was under the impression that since M/s. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. had filed their subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ered and he is not required to file any separate reply to the show cause notice. Further once the penalty was imposed, appeal was filed with delay which was condoned. Therefore, even if there was 142 days delay for filing appeal before the tribunal, in our opinion it ought to have been condoned. Therefore, the question framed by us is answered in favour of the assessee against the department. We c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X