9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Present for the Respondent : Shri.G.R. Singh, D.R. ORDER This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 05.03.2008 Passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU), and is engaged in the manufacture of printed books falling under Chapter 4901 of the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise duty of Rs. 19,18,731/- was confirmed alongwith equal amount of penalty. The amount already deposited by the appellant was appropriated in the said adjudication order. In appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the duty demand confirmed in the Adjudication Order. Hence the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Shri R.K. Hasija, the ld. Advocate appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no penalty can be imposed on the appellant in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. To support his said view, the ld. Advocate has relied on the order dated 28.04.2010 of this Tribunal passed in the case of the appellant itself (Excise Appeal No. E/629/2006-EX.Br.) 5. Shri G.R. Singh, ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, reiterates the findings recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder towards duty liability. Since interest in the present case has not been deposited by the appellant, we are of the view that the interest for delayed payment of Central Excise duty has to be paid by the appellant. With regard to imposition of penalty, we find that the issue involved in the case relates to interpretation of the Notification No.22/2003 dated 31st March, 2003 and in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
