9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial) 1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.AT/683/Bel/2005 dated 31/01/2006. 2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the confirmation of differential duty along with imposition of interest and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC and penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity are fully justifiable. The appellants have paid the duty only on issuance of show cause notice. As there is clear contravention of the Central Excise Rules and payment of duty is only after issuance of show cause notice, the penalty imposed is justifiable. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower authority. 6. It can be noticed from the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two contentions raised by the appellant are very valid contentions to come to a conclusion whether the appellant is liable to be penalized under the provisions of Section 11AC and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered these provisions of law while upholding the adjudication order, to my mind, the impugned order suffers from infirmity. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
