2007 (2) TMI 405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bsp;Heard both the sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby penalty under Section 11AC was upheld by the adjudicating authority while dropping the demand. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in drawing of copper wire and aluminum wire and working under the Modvat scheme. The appellants were availing credit in respect of duty pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and is not sustainable, and in view of the explanation given by the appellants, there is no issue of clandestine removal. Hence appellants are not liable for penalty. 4. The contention of the revenue is that the shortage of inputs and finished goods were admitted by the authorized signatory. Therefore, demand was rightly made. The appellants are liable to penalty. 5. In this case, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appellants has paid duty thereon duty liability does not sustain but the fact remains that the goods found short were removed clandestinely by the appellants." In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that duty liability does not arise. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand and the Revenue has not filed any appeal against this order, I find merit in the contentio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X