2016 (2) TMI 960

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that during the period 2011-12 to 2012-13, the appellant was clearing the goods by paying duty on inputs and later on supplementary thereon was also paid. An audit was conducted in the factory of the appellant an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that no duty has been demanded and no allegation of mala fide intention has been established, the allegations raised in the show cause notice are of technical nature and therefore, reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant. In fact there is finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no allegation of mala fide intention or has not been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X