9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 116/2012-AHD-III-/SKS/COMMR-A-/AH dtd 7.9.2012 under which OIO No 26/AC/DEM/CE/2011 dated 30.11.2011 was upheld. 2. Shri S J Vyas, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the appellant has paid the entire duty liability alongwith interest but is only contesting penalty of Rs. 4275/- upon the appellants under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise duty but no penalty is required to be imposed on the ground that the appellant was under the bonafide belief that such duty liability is not attracted. 3. Shri Govind Jha, Authorised Representative , appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the case law CCE Jalandar vs AG Flats Ltd [2012(277)ELT.96] to argue that duty liability is attracted on the bye product that emerged durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CCE Jalandar I vs AG Flats Ltd (supra) passed in 2012 makes it clear that there was chargeability of duty on the bye product. The appellant during the period May 2008 to May 2009 may not have any to malafide intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty when by the judgement of Apex Court in the case of CCE Chandigarh I vs Markfed Vanaspati and Allied Industries Ltd (supra) it was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
