9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P Jadeja, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri T K Sikdar, Authorised Representatives ORDER Per : Mr.P.K. Das, After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that M/s Nachmo Humidifiers Pvt Ltd (herein after referred to as NHPL) were engaged in the manufacture of Parts of Humidifier and Humidifying Plants. On 4.2.1997, Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE dtd 1.3.1993. A show cause notice dtd 11.8.1998 was issued to NHPL proposing demand of duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty by clubbing clearance of the other units for the period from 1995-96 and 1996. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 4,16,775/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 and also a penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the other appellant cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. We find that the Learned Counsel for the appellants are not seriously contesting the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act on M/s NHPL. The main grievance of the Learned Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contesting on merit, there is no need to go into the facts of the case. In overall consideration of facts and circumstance of the case, as the appellant already paid the duty alongwith interest and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, during investigation, imposition of penalty on Shri Bhargavbhai H Jain is not warranted. It is seen that that Adjudicating authority already imposed penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
