9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urag Mishra, Advocates for the appellants. Shri Rajiv Ranjan, (Joint Commr.) (A.R.) for the Department. Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar The present two appeals are arising out of common impugned OIA No. 04/Commr./Ghaziabad/2009 dated 14.05.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Synthetic We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be impose under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules and penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and why appellants should not pay interest on short paid Central Excise Duty. The said show cause notice also had a proposal for imposition of personal penalty on Shri Pawan Agarwal. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has submitted that the issue is already settled in respect of M/s. Superior Fabric by this very Bench through Final Order No, 71046-71047/2016 dated 25.10.2016. They have submitted that they no more contest the classification and accept the classification decided through the said Final Order dated 25.10.2016. He argued that since the dispute was regarding interpretation equal penalty was not just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edule. We also note that the entire duty demanded through the said show cause notice has been deposited before the adjudication. We further hold that Belt Waist which is also subject matter of the same show cause notice is classifiable under Sub Heading No. 63.07 of the same Schedule as held by us through said Final Order dated 25.10.2016. We further ordered that for subsequent period the classifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
