9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty. Therefore the penalty is not warranted. The appellant has not contested on interest demanded by the lower authority. Thus penalty was wrongly imposed on the appellant. The impugned order is set aside to the extent of imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/-. The interest demanded by the lower authority is maintained. - Appeal No. E/1050/10-Mum - A/85346/16/SMB - Dated:- 1-1-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that there is no dispute that during the default period, the appellant have not paid the duty on consignment basis, therefore the delay in payment of duty. Hence the appellant was liable for penalty as they contravened the provision of Rule 8(3A). On the query of the bench that Rule 8(3A) was held ultra vises by the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant has not contested on interest demanded by the lower authority. The appellant has relied upon following judgments: (a) Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 833 (Guj.) (b) Goel Tempo Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - 2014 (313) ELT 805 (Tri-Del) In view of the above judgment and also considering the facts of the case, penalty w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
