2005 (8) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. When case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. The appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellant. 2. Heard the learned DR. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner, Meerut whereby penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs has been imposed under Rule 209A of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the present appellant on the ground that the appellant had facilitated to evade payment of duty. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., v. HMM Ltd. - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) held that question of penalty would arise only if the department is able to sustain its demand. In the present case, as the demand against M/s. BHEL is already set aside by the Tribunal vide Order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X