9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced manufacture of the products to vendors, they cannot be faulted and penalized for the allegation of improper discharge of duty liability by the latter. No justification is found for imposing penalty on the appellant herein under Rule 26 of the Rules - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/805/2010 - FINAL ORDER No. 40990/2018 - Dated:- 28-3-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s herein. In adjudication, vide an order dated 31.07.2008, demand of ₹ 1,34,944/- with interest thereon was confirmed on M/s. Cooper Bussman India Pvt. Ltd., penalty of ₹ 50,000 imposed on Shri S. Arumugam, Financial Controller, equal penalty imposed on M/s. Cooper Bussman India Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and equal penalty on the appellant under Rule 26 ibid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mselves have done removal, storage, concealment, transportation of the said products etc., is factually incorrect. The entire dispute only concerns wrong discharge of duty liability under Section 4 instead of Section 4 A by the main noticee, which discrepancy was accepted and the duty demand was paid up by M/s. Cooper Bussman. For these reasons, the penalty imposed on the appellant is unjustified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to be noted that the main noticee have nonetheless accepted the order of differential demand and paid up the same along with interest and also the penalties imposed on the Financial Manager. In these circumstances, just because the appellant herein had outsourced manufacture of the products to vendors, they cannot be faulted and penalized for the allegation of improper discharge of duty liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
