2004 (8) TMI 582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... jesh Chibber, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 28,762.73 under Section 11-A and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. On carrying o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... epositing through TR-6 Challan. The view taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that Rule 9(2) was not attracted for confirmation of the demand of duty as no shortage of the finished goods was found, in my view, is wholly erroneous. Mere wrong mention of the provisions of law did not vitiate the show cause notice wherein all allegations regarding the shortage of the inputs/raw material detect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for confirmation of the penalty amount also which is Rs. 25,000/- against the respondents under Rule 173-Q, cannot be sustained as the penalty could only be imposed under Rule 57(i) which pertains to the imposition of penalty in the case of wrongful availment of the credit. Therefore, the penalty has been rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the respondents. 4. Except for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X