TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, 'the Act'), challenging order dated 21-7-2006, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). Facts are being referred from C.E.A. No. 26 of 2007. 2. The assessee M/s Sigma Steel Tubes is engaged in manufacturing of steel tubes. The Central Excise Prevention staff detected a shortage of 19.673 MT of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consequently set aside the order to the extent it imposed interest and penalty but it confirmed the amount of duty imposed by the order. It further held that once penalty was imposed on the firm-respondent No. 1, there was no occasion for the Adjudicating Authority to impose penalty on the partner. 3. The revenue approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal affirming the view t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave also perused the order-in-original, order-in-appeal and the order passed by the Tribunal. We do not feel persuaded to accept the contention raised because firstly the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 23-2-2006 (P-2) has recorded a finding that it was not a case of clandestine removal of items. It also referred to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods may be due to wrong accounts and clerical mistakes also and it cannot be a case of clandestine removal unless proved by the corroborative evidences. Order-in-Original imposing the interest and penalty is, therefore, set aside and amount of duty deposited is confirmed. Moreover, when penalty is imposed on the company no penalty is imposable on the Partner." 6. We are further of the view that ....