9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to 1,20,000/- only - there is no infirmity in the impugned order reducing the penalty from 6,75,535/- to 1,20,000/- which the appellant is liable to pay as per the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from MVM during 2002-2003 in the month of March 2003 and accordingly they worked out the Central Excise duty payable at 16% advolerm. On the amount in excess of the exemption limit, appellants remitted an amount of ₹ 2,28,162/- as Central Excise duty at the SBT, Kollam Branch on 4.4.2003 without applying for the Central Excise Registration and without following the Central Excise procedures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th appropriate interest under Section 11AB and also imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 28.12.2006 remanded the case to the lower adjudicating authority to re-quantify the duty demand with reference to the normal transaction value allowed the service tax pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and aggrieved by that penalty, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the appellant had a bona fide reason for non-registration and non-payment of duty and invocation of larger period under Section 11A proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
