TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Act or the Rules - to evade payment of duty on the part of the respondent - Mere bald allegations cannot advance the case of Revenue - Appeal is dismissed - 41 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2010 - V.C. Daga and S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. S.I. Shah, i/b. S.I. Shah and Co., for the Appellant. Shri Prakash Shah i/b PDS Legal, for the Respondent. [Order]. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppression of facts, attracting penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944? If yes, whether the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the penalty? 2. Ms. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue took us through order of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the allegations cannot be read in isolation. They cannot be read bereft of the context in which they were made. In absence of ingredients of rule 57-I, being part of the show cause notice, it is not possible to find out whether there was any suppression of facts by the respondent. Mere bald allegations cannot advance the case of Revenue. 3. The Tribunal has recorded positive finding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
