2015 (10) TMI 1244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant : Shri Uday Joshi, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das The applicants filed these applications for early hearing of the appeals. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicants submits that the applicants filed these appeals against imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He submits that on the identical issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nfirmed in demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty on the manufacturer and also imposed penalty on the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. On a query from the Bench, the Learned Advocate submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) by a se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... considered view, after the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Ravi Kiran Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where the appellant was party, the penalty imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained. However, the Tribunal remanded the appeal of the manufacturer against the impugned order to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on merit, so, it is appropriate, the matter should be remanded to the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X