9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order whereby penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act was waived. Commissioner of Central Excise after going into the facts on record held that the appellant suppressed the material fact with intent to evade payment of duty hence liable for penalty und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eas the computer generated invoices show the date as 9-7-2004. The contention of appellant is that in fact there is no computer generated invoices numbering 5103, 5104 and 5105 dated 9-7-2004. The contention is that from the records it was found that the goods were actually cleared on 9-7-2004 whereas the date of invoices were shown to be 8-7-2004. The contention of the appellant is that as Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant raised the legal issue that for imposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, there should be a determination of duty under sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. This issue was not raised before lower authority. Being a legal issue, it can be raised at the appellate stage. Further, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in respect of Three invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
