9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty is required to be imposed - penalty of ₹ 5000/- imposed by the original adjudicating authority was not challenged by the appellant, and as such the said penalty would remain - appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/533/09 - ORDER NO. A/85481/2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI RAJU, MEMBERE (TECHNICAL) Ms. Manasi Patil, Advocate, for Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king them unable to pay the duty. Subsequently, on issuance of show-cause notice invoking the longer period of limitation, they, after procuring the requisite information from their customer, paid the duty. She clarifies that though the demands stand raised by invoking the longer period of limitation, but she is not contested the same inasmuch as the same stands paid by them. 3. The only challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. On going through the order of the original adjudicating authority, we note that the findings as regards the absence of any mala fide has been arrived at by him, in which case, we agree with the learned Counsel that no penalty is required to be imposed. However, penalty of ₹ 5000/- imposed by the original adjudicating authority was not challenged by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
