9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on the premise that the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not invoked in the facts of the case which is prime condition for imposition of penalty - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty on the premise that provisions of Section 11AC of the Act have not been invoked. There is no finding of the lower authorities that the respondent has not paid the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst Revenue. - E/465/2007-Mum & Cross Objection No. E/CO/132/2007-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/597-598/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 19-3-2014 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri D.D. Joshi, Supdt. (AR), for the Appellant. Shri Vinay Sejpal, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order for dropping the penalty against the respondent unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our occasions, therefore they are habitual offenders and penalty under Rule 25 ibid is to be imposed. In the alternative, he submits that penalty under Rule 27 ibid could be imposed as per the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Saurashtra Cement Ltd. - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 71 (Guj.). 4. Heard the ld. AR. Perused the impugned order. 5. I find that the ld. Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that there is no prayer in the appeal to impose penalty under Rule 25 ibid. Therefore, at this stage, the prayer for imposition of penalty under Rule 27 cannot be accepted. 6. In these terms, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order; the same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Cross-objection is also disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated in Court) - - TaxTM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
