9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hok Jindal: The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order for confiscation of the goods, imposing redemption of fine and penalties of Rs. 35,000/- on the main appellant M/s.Prakash Cable Industries and Rs. 15,000/- on the co-appellant Shri Ajay Gupta. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an investigation was conducted in the factory premises of the main appellant on 03.01.2011. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority was modified by confiscating the excess stock found and consequently allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalty on the main appellant and co-appellant. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellants are before me. 3. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that as per provisions of section 11A (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Vikas Garg-2014 (306) ELT 94 (P&H). He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Prakash Agarwal-2013 (297) ELT 554 (Tri.-Del.) - 4. On the other hand, learned AR for the Revenue relies on the decision of Tribunal in teh case of CCE, Raipur vs. Anand Agawal-2013 (288) ELT 90 (Tri.-Del.) and submits that the penalty is imposable. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after considering the decision in the case of Anand Agarwal have arrived at the decision that if duty, interest and 25% duty as penalty have been deposited by the manufacturer within the stipulated time as prescribed under section 11A (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the show cause notice also stands concluded. 8. In view of above, I hold that the impugned order was not required to be passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
