9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in dropping the penalty imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 3. On going through the impugned order, we find that the point at issue has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Para 8 of the impugned order which reads as under - "8. (i) I have examined the position. The Joint Commissioner has rightly set aside the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of H. Guru Investment (North India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CEGAT, New Delhi reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 8 (All.) held that "Penalty - Demand notice and notice imposing penalty issued to the Petitioner Tribunal cancelled the demand notice on the ground of being time-barred but kept the amount of penalty to be paid - Penalty not leviable when demand of duty itself is set aside. Article 226 of Constitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is concerned, I find that unless the specific allegations are set out in Show Cause Notice, and there is elaboration as to how ingredients of Rule 209A are satisfied, penalty under Rule 209A is not sustainable and further mens rea is an essential ingredient for imposing penalty under Rule 209A ibid. I find that the Department has failed to bring any evidence on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
