9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng none appeared for hearing. On many past occasions also, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Efforts to serve notice through the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise also failed because the respondent could not be located at the last known address. Since this is an appeal pending since 2003, it was decided to take up the appeal for decision. A hearing was given to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 43,902/was imposed under section 11AC of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/was imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed an appeal with Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) in his order held that- (i) the demand in respect of invoice No. 38 dt 09-05-97 for value of Rs. 70,664/was not maintainable because it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal) should have confirmed demand of Rs. 28,873/rather than Rs. 27,976/-. Revenue relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. Versus CCE-2007 (210) E.L.T. 183 (S.C.) (ii) Commissioner (Appeal) should have imposed penalty equal to Rs. 28,873/under section 11AC because there is no discretion vested on any authority to decide on the quantum of penalty under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) decided by Hon'ble Apex Court. So, we uphold the decision of the Commissioner (Appeal) in this regard. 7. In the matter of penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, now it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court by decision in the case of UOI Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) that if there is finding that penalty under section 11AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
