9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), the appellant-Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara-I has challenged order dated 18th October, 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (the Tribunal). 2. While admitting the appeal vide order dated 15th September, 2006, the Court had formulated the following three questions :- (1) Whether on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved beyond doubt? (3) Whether the Tribunal could have set aside the personal penalties imposed on Shri N.N. Bhut and M/s. WEEC especially when it is not a simple case of clandestine removal undertaken by minor lapse or by the workers/staff of the firms and instead such illicit removal in the name of M/s. WEEC was a well thought of and collusively manipulated by Shri N.N. Bhut who is not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 11AB of the Act. Penalty of ₹ 50,000/- each came to be separately imposed on the respondent Shri Narendrabhai N. Bhut, partner of M/s. Western Electrical Company as well as the Western Electrical and Engineering Company under rule 209A of the Rules. Being aggrieved, the respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal. The resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that no reason exists for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules. Thus, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on the respondent-assessee under Rule 209A of the Rules on the basis of findings of fact recorded by it. In the circumstances, the learned advocate for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
