9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Tribunal took note of the fact that the revenue is against the impugned order of the Commissioner whereby, he had dropped penalty proceedings against the respondent, Managing Director of one M/s Rishiroop Rubber (I) Ltd. against whom demand duty of ₹ 14,734/- stood confirmed. The Tribunal has further noted that M/s Rishiroop Rubber (I) Ltd. had also challenged the said order and the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G. Uraizee, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr R J Oza, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Navin K Pawha, Adv, Mrs Sangeeta N Pawha, Adv ORDER ( Per : Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani ) 1. By an order dated 03.03.2009, this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed. The Tribunal has further noted that M/s Rishiroop Rubber (I) Ltd. had also challenged the said order and the Tribunal by its order dated 07.01.2004, allowed the appellant s plea and set aside the impugned order. Having regard to the fact that the main appeal stood allowed, the Tribunal held that the revenue s plea for imposition of penalty on the Managing Director cannot be accepted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
