9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected against the order dated 18.5.2006 ( Annexure P.3) passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi holding that imposition of penalty on the manufacturer was not justified. The revenue has claimed that the following substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court: "Whether CESTAT is correct in holding the penalty equivalent to disputed duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to Rs.1,00,530/- determined had already been deposited by the assessee under Section 11 (1)(A) of the Act. An equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules read with Section 11 AC of the Act was also imposed alongwith penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on Shri Amit Banga, Director of the Company under Rule 26 of the Rules. The afore-mentioned view of the Adjudicating Officer was accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined under sub section 2 of Section 11 A of the Act. Order passed by the Adjudicating Officer and the final order do not record any finding that there was any intention to evade payment of duty. We have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the revenue to read this finding but she could not find any such finding on record. Moreover, the duty was paid before the issuance of a show cause notice a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
