2017 (4) TMI 1298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the penalty on the respondent has been dropped by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The case of the Revenue is that the respondent was showing that they are doing manufacturing activity and availing Cenvat credit on inputs and without manufacturing issuing the invoices of finished goods. It was detected during the course of investigation tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vision to impose the penalty on the respondent under Rule 25/26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As it is an admitted position that respondent has never dealt with the goods. In that circumstances, the ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly observed as under :- "I find that since no manufacturing activity has taken place in the instant case and no excisable goods, liable for confiscation, have been m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ules, 2002 on the appellants. Therefore, I set aside the order appealed against. Accordingly, the stay petition is also disposed of." 5. I do agree with the observations made by the ld. Commissioner (A), therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld. 6. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
Case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X