9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agarwal, AR ORDER Archana Wadhwa (Judicial Member) The challenge in the present appeal is only to the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,08,88,166/- imposed upon the appellant in terms of provisions of Rule 57 U(6) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as they have been permitted by the High Powered Committee only to challenge penalty and not to challenge the confirmation of demand of identical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 56 Q of Central Excise Rules. 3. However, Revenue doubted the correctness of the said classification adopted by M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works at their end and initiated proceeding for confirmation of differential duty against M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works, on the ground that the bins were correctly classifiable under 73.08. If the correct classification of the bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant along with imposition of penalty upon both the appellants. 5. It is seen that appeal filed by M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order No. 52733/2015 dated 18.8.2015 and the impugned order against M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works was set aside on the point of limitation. Inasmuch the same order, which stand set aside by the Tribunal, is impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If that be so, the appellant having availed the cenvat credit on the basis of documents received by them from M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works showing the classification as falling under 8474.90, no malafide can also be attributable to them. In such a scenario, imposition of penalty upon them is not called for. Accordingly, penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside. Inasmuch as they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
