9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate For the Respondent : Shri G. Jha, Authorised Representative ORDER Per Dr. D.M. Misra; These three appeals are filed against OIA-SRP-216-220-DMN-2012-13 dated 05.02.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Daman. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Vardhman Polypacks, the appellant Firm was engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Lay Flat Tubes, Plastic Films etc. falli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that M/s. Vardhman Polypacks, a partnership firm, has paid entire duty liability, interest and 25% of the penalty imposed as ordered by the original adjudicating authority. He submits that their appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering their submission that they had discharged 25% of the penalty in compliance with the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of other appellants, he submits that the penalties have already been reduced substantially by the Commissioner (Appeals), hence, their pleas for further reduction is not acceptable. 5. In rejoinder, ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that since they had complied with the condition of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act by depositing 25% of the penalty as mentioned in Order-in-Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avin N. Shah vs. CESTAT (supra). As regards the personal penalty on Shri Satyendra R. Yadav, employee of the, keeping in view the role played by him and his position in the Firm, and in the interest of justice, the penalty is reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
7. Appeals are disposed of on the above terms.
( Dictated and pronounced in the open Court ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
