9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation the rejection of all the submissions and documents by the adjudicating authority contending that it is afterthought is absolutely incorrect and it is in clear violation of natural justice. I uphold the dropping of penalty of ₹ 1 Lac by Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) of Shri. P.K. Dasgupta. As regard the appeal against company, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after affording personal hearing to the respondent - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/968/08 - A/89698/17/SMB - Dated:- 26-9-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Shri. S.V. Nair, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants Shri. S.S. Gupta, C.A. for the Respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such difference, it was contended that the appellant have cleared the goods clandestinely on the shortage found in physical as compared to the stock balance appeared in RT 12 returns. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued, which was culminated into adjudication order, wherein demand of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 42,18,848/- was confirmed, equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC was imposed, interest under Section 11AB was demanded and personal penalties on various persons were imposed. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, Respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), who allowed the appeal by setting aside the Order-in-Original therefore Revenue is before me. 2. Shri. S.V. Nair, Ld. Asstt. Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se explanation is afterthought. Therefore there is clear violation of principle of natural justice. He submits that as regard the department has filed appeal against Shri. P.K. Dasgupta of the respondent company on which penalty of ₹ 1 lac was imposed. He submits that appeal in respect of personal penalty is not maintainable on the ground as per government litigation policy accordingly to which departmental appeal is not maintainable if the amount involved is less than 10 Lacs. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 5. As regard the appeal against company, I find that all the explanation alongwith documents made by the respondent before the adjudicating authority to explain that there is difference in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
