2010 (3) TMI 963

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. ORDER These three appeals are by the Department arising out of common order-in-appeal No. 140-144/CE/CHD/2008, dated 15-2-2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). There are other parties aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and their appeals are not being dealt with in this order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts in Appeal No. 1017/08 with Shri H.S. Steel (P) Ltd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... balance of 220.870 MT and no reason could be given by the partner. The duty involved amounting to Rs. 44,250/- was debited on 27-9-2003. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed 44,250/- as penalty on the respondent firm under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules and also penalty of Rs. 44,250/- on Shri Naresh Joshi partner under Rule 126 of the Central Excise Rules. On appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riginal authority. In view of the above, he came to the conclusion that these cases filed under the ambit of Section 11A 2(b) of the Act, question of penalty in the present case does not arise. The grounds of appeal do not reveal any facts which can upset the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that these cases are covered under section 11A(2B) of the Act. Therefore, I hold that no valid grounds .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X