9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration are officers of the Central Excise Division, Rohtak visited the unit of the respondent and during the course of investigation, they found that there was a shortage of raw material on which credit was availed by the respondent. The respondent immediately reversed the amount of credit involved. Subsequently a show cause notice was is sued for imposition of penalty and for appropriation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2006 (204) E.L.T. 22 (P&H)] (Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV New CGO Complex, NH-IV, Faridabad v. MA Illpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd.) and 25-7- 2006 in CEA No. 13 of 2005 [2006 (202) E.L.T. 398 (P&H)] (Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III. v. Machino Montell (I) Limited and another), we allow this appeal, set aside order of the Tribunal and remand the case to the Tribunal for a fresh dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial when received in the month of June, 2001. It is seen from the records that the respondent's Director voluntarily debited the amount in their RG-23A Part II register accepting the error of his employees in not recording the correct weight of the input received by them. I also find that the show cause notice does not bring out anything to indicate that there was clandestine removal of the inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces as indicated above, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent it upholds the confirmation of demand is liable to be upheld, while the order in appeal to the extent it sets aside the entire penalty imposed on the respondent is modified to the extent that the respondent is liable for penal action and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as penalty would meet ends of justice. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
