TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules 9(2), 52A, 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 imposed by the lower authority but reduced the same from ₹ 1,42,188 to ₹ 40,000. 2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Ld. Consultant Shri M. Saravanan has submitted a written submission and has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the department appeal filed against the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, 2004 (165) ELT 508 (Kar) wherein also a similar view was taken and the reference application filed by the Revenue was rejected. He also relied on the decision of this Bench in the matter of EID Parry (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 2003 (157) ELT 193 (Tri-Chennai) wherein this Bench has h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well settled that no penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act ibid or under various Rules of the Central Excise Rules can be imposed when the duty has been paid before the issuance of Show-cause Notice. In the instant case Show-cause Notice was issued on 14th March, 1997, whereas the duty of ₹ 1,42,088 was paid on 8th October, 1996. Respectfully following the above judgments cited by Ld. Consu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
