9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Narsimhan, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - 2. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue is whether penalty is imposable on M/s. Burman Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., respondents. 3. We heard Shri U. Raja Ram, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue and Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate for the respondents. The respondents ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the entire duty before issuance of show cause notice. It has been contended by the Revenue that the penalty is imposable on the respondents as they had cleared the goods by wrongly availing the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000; that there is no option available to the Adjudicating Authority not to impose mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Learned Advocate submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication, they have not filed the Appeal against the confirmation of the demand of duty; that as even as the duty was not payable by them, they could not be saddled with the liability to pay any penalty. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 is being denied to the respondents as they were availing Modvat credit on the inputs and did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It has not been disputed by the respondents that demand of duty was not challenged by them before the original Adjudicating Authority and they had also discharged their duty liability even before the issuance of show cause notice. In view of the decision in the case of N.M. Nagpal, the respondents would not have been liable to pay the duty. In view of this, we find substance in the submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
