2003 (10) TMI 654

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... RDER These two appeals are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the operative part of which reads as under :- In view of above I confirm the order concerning demand of excise duty of ₹ 49,692/- and reduce the penalty on appellant to ₹ 15,000/- under Rule 173-Q read with Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since Shri Ajay Gupta, Partner is not the appellant, I ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ne of the prayers in the appeal was to vacate the penalty of ₹ 20,000/- imposed on Shri Ajay Gupta. Nevertheless, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) chose to treat the appeal only as one filed by the firm as evidenced by the order extracted above. This action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) does not seem to be correct as pointed out by the learned Counsel today. The Counsel has relied .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X