9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KS/154/Daman/2006 dated 28.06.2006. 2. After hearing for sometime on the appeal, we find that the issue lies in a very very narrow compass. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant s product TETMOSOL Soap is assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not. It is seen that this Tribunal vide final order No. A/414-415/2005-WZB/C-1 dated 13.5.2005 has clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s his submission that in an identical issue in respect of the very same assessee, this Bench vide final order No. A/2345/WZB/AHD/2009 dated02.12.2009, while holding against the appellant on the merits, had set-aside the penalties imposed by the lower authorities. It is his submission that the penalties are unwarranted as the appellant was disputing the classification of the product and the classif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the sides. The sole basis for levy of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act on the appellants is the following paragraph in the show cause notice The assessee has also contravened the provisions of Section 4(A) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 4 and Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, inasmuch as they failed to correctly determine and pay Central Excise duty on the clearance of Tet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that there was any suppression of facts or willful mis-declaration, fraud or collusion etc. In view of the above position, while on merits, we find that appellants have no case and therefore, they are required to pay the duty demanded with interest as applicable. Penalty imposed on them under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
