9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER The present two appeals are directed against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 17.7.2014 vide which he has upheld the Order-in-Original but dropped the equal amount of penalty imposed on the appellant. As the issue is identical in both these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly the facts of the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner after considering the reply from the appellant confirmed the demand vide his order dated 29.3.2013/28.2.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Originals except dropping equal amount of penalty on the appellant. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the manufacture of final product. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following authorities. (i) CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (ii) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (15) S.T.R. 657 3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted the authorities of KPMG vs. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 96 in which the Hon'ble CES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
