9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent : Mr. Govind Dixit, DR ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: The present appeal is against the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of SAN Co-Polymers liable to Central Excise duty. They transfer this co-polymer 1to their other factory located in Bhansali Nagar. On scrutiny of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties in respect of all the three demands. In respect of first notice, he confirmed the demand of Rs. 18,713/- as against Rs. 1,95,297/- demanded in the notice. Similarly in respect of second SCN an amount of Rs. 3,56,486/- was confirmed as against the proposal of Rs. 2,39,52,636/-. In respect of 3rd SCN, the amount confirmed was Rs. 47,37,915/- as against the demand for Rs. 68,58,837/-. The Ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than the demanded amount. The 2nd notice was confirmed for only Rs. 3,56,486/-. Here again imposing penalty without reference to any particular notice and in a case where overall there is excess payment is legally unsustainable. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. Though, a few issues have been raised in the grounds of appeal by the appellant, the Ld. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posing penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. In Saurashtra Cement Ltd. [2010 (2000) ELT 71 (Guj.)] Hon-ble Gujarat High Court held that the ingredients mentioned in Section 11AC are also required to be considered while determining the question of levying of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. 6. We find that the Original authority did not substantiate the reason for im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
