TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priation of duty paid by the appellant and imposition of penalty. The appellant did not contest the duty liability but contested only penalty till the level of Commissioner (Appeals). When learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that there is no tangible evidence of clandestine removal of goods, therefore appellant cannot be allowed to contest the duty liability taking support of Hri Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On 24.2.2010, the factory of appellant was visited and some shortage of inputs and finished goods were detected. On detection of the shortage, the appellant paid the duty. Therefore, the case has been booked against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice for appropriation of duty already paid and for imposition of penalty under Section 11C of the Act. The show cause notice was adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d vide Final Order No. A/54836/14 SM(Br) dated 24.12.2014. He also relied on the decision of Minakshi Castings [2011(274)ELT 180(A11)]. 5. On the other hand, learned AR Drew my attention to the impugned order and submits that in their grounds of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), there is clear submission that they are contesting the duty and they are contesting only penalty which has been i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the duty liability taking support of Hri Sidhdata Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the case of hri Sidhdata Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (supra), it is not coming out from the facts that appellant has not contested the duty liability before the lower authorities. In these circumstances, the decision of Hri Sidhdata is not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, I find that in the impugned order the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
