9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Rules 9(2), 52A, 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 imposed by the lower authority but reduced the same from ₹ 1,42,188 to ₹ 40,000. 2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Ld. Consultant Shri M. Saravanan has submitted a written submission and has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uance of Show-Cause Notice. Ld. Consultant also relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, 2004 (165) ELT 508 (Kar) wherein also a similar view was taken and the reference application filed by the Revenue was rejected. He also relied on the decision of this Bench in the matter of EID Parry (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 2003 (15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue is no longer res integra and it is now well settled that no penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act ibid or under various Rules of the Central Excise Rules can be imposed when the duty has been paid before the issuance of Show-cause Notice. In the instant case Show-cause Notice was issued on 14th March, 1997, whereas the duty of ₹ 1,42,088 was paid on 8th October, 1996. Respectfully f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
