9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eshmukh, J 1. We have heard learned Counsel Ms. S. Linhares for the appellant and Mr. H.K. Maingi for the respondent. 2. The respondent, in this appeal is a manufacturer of washing machines and dryers. The respondent has been availing the CENVAT/MODVAT provided under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred as the "said Rules"). The respondent filed a price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appeal filed on behalf of the respondent was considered. The order passed by the Joint Commissioner was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT upheld the duty payable by reducing penalty to Rs.15,000/-. In other words, amount of Rs.31,516/- imposed on the respondent has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence as the issue has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India V/S Dharamendra Textile Processors reported in 2008(231) E.L.T. 3(S.C.) is made available to us. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, we have noticed paragraph 2 of the Judgment. Reference is made to paragraph 2 of the Judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and set aside. In this case penalty is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. This part needs to be quashed and set aside with direction to the respondent to pay the amount to the tune of Rs.31,516/-. 7. Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. Impugned order reducing penalty from Rs.31,516/- to Rs.15,000/- is quashed and set aside. Respondent shall make payment of Rs.31,516/- towards penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
