9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of cigarette. At the time of surprise visit of the Central Excise officers on 7/1/08, certain stock of fully finished cigarettes involving excise duty of Rs. 1,11,351/- was found short vis--vis balance recorded in the RG-1 register. Inquiry was made with Shri V.P. Singh, General Manager of the appellant firm who in his statement accepted the shortage stating that the cigarettes found short have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the adjudication order. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the above order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld vide order-in-appeal dated 5/2/2010. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) these two appeals have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri K.L. Honda, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 10 (Guj.) and CCE, Ahmedabad II vs. Prem Fabricators reported in 2013 (287) E.L.T. 282 (Guj.) are eligible for the benefit of proviso to Section 11AC, which has been wrongly denied to them, and that as regards penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri V.P. Singh, General Manager of the appellant firm, the same is not called for as Shri V.P. Singh, G.M. was only an paid employee of the appellant firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Rohtak vs. J.R. Fabrics (P) Ltd. (supra) and of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CCE, Surat II vs. Gopal Fibres Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and CCE, Ahmedabad II vs. Prem Fabricators (supra) would be applicable and, as such, the benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section 11AC cannot be denied to the appellant. In view of this, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
