9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mentioned reports. In view of the above position, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid ₹ 8,95,382/- in their Cenvat Account on 09.11.04, 25.02.04 and 10.03 04 I order that the said payment of Us.8,95,382/- stands appropriated towards the confirmed demand. 3) I impose penalty of ₹ 24,23,689/- under the provisions of Section MAC of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 1730 of Contra] Excise Rules, l944, and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002, in respect of Show Cause Notice No.V-Adj(Misc)30-45/04 dt.29.04.04. 4) I also impose penalty of ₹ 8,95,352/- under the provisions of Section 1 1AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002, in respect of Show Cause Notice No.V-Adj(Misc)30-77/04 dt 06.08.04 5) The interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, I# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order and submits that extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked as in the price declaration they have not indicated what is being included and even the CA certificate which was certified along with the price declarations did not clarify the position. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We note that in the present case the personal hearing was granted to the appellant on 28.12.2004 and the Commissioner has relied upon the reports of the AD (Cost), which are dated 23.2.2005 and 14.3.2005 and the order is passed on 31.3.2005. Under the circumstances, we find force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant that there has been serious breach of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the order has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
