TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent. [Order]. - All these appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal wherein imposition of penalty on the appellants is upheld. 2. The relevant facts arising for consideration are that M/s. Sneh Silicate the appellants in Appeal No. E/127/04 is a job worker of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and appellant in Appeal No. E/125/04 & E/126/04. M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited used to get t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposed penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), come to the conclusion that the duty paid by the jobworker is correct as also availment of Modvat credit by him cannot be faulted and that M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited has availed the credit of duty correctly as duty has been discharged by the job-worker and set aside the demand but reduced the penalty for violation of procedure prescribed mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Heard both sides and considered the submissions made. Perused the records. I find that it is not in dispute that the availment of credit by both appellants is within the provisions of law and it is also not in dispute that the duty liability is discharged correctly. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has come to the following findings in Paras 10 & 11 as follows :- "10.&ems....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue, I reduce the amount of penalty by half on both of them in each of the above four cases decided in this appeal." I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion correctly that the demand of the duty is not sustainable on the appellants. 6. I find, that, the reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not in consonance with the settled law on the issue. It is ....