9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 135/2009 dated 13-4-2009. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that appellants are registered with the Department and are manufacturing excisable goods vis. Steel Tubes and pipes. The appellants had debited an amount of Rs. 4,95,148/- during the month of July, 2006 in their input account, bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hence, this appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that both the lower authorities have erred in imposing equal amount of penalty. It is his submission that the shortfall of the duty that was to be paid by the appellant in March, 2005 was detected by them and was paid by them in July, 2006 and show cause notice was issued in the month of June, 2007 for appropriation of the amount paid by them and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the RT12 returns which were submitted, were indicating the invoices which were issued and for which an amount was debited. He submitted that this is suppression of facts. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. While upholding the Order-in-Original, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has done so by recording the following findings in para No. 5 of his order. "5…… ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se findings. It is also seen from the impugned order that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded any findings on the specific pleas taken by the appellant before him. By merely recording agreement with the findings of the adjudicating authority, which was beyond the purview of the allegations in the show cause notice, in my opinion, the impugned order is non-speaking one. In view of this, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
