TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of duty, interest and penalty within 30 days from the date of order, accordingly, they are eligible to the benefit to discharge 25% of penalty as observed in the Order-in-Original. Since, they had complied the condition laid down in the said Order, accordingly, the appeal is infructuous and dismissed as withdrawn. In the case of the Appellant, Shri Haresh D. Shah, partner, the penalty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive ORDER Per Dr. D.M. Misra; These three appeals are filed against OIA-SRP-216-220-DMN-2012-13 dated 05.02.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Daman. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Vardhman Polypacks, the appellant Firm was engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Lay Flat Tubes, Plastic Films etc. falling under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat M/s. Vardhman Polypacks, a partnership firm, has paid entire duty liability, interest and 25% of the penalty imposed as ordered by the original adjudicating authority. He submits that their appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering their submission that they had discharged 25% of the penalty in compliance with the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lties have already been reduced substantially by the Commissioner (Appeals), hence, their pleas for further reduction is not acceptable. 5. In rejoinder, ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that since they had complied with the condition of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act by depositing 25% of the penalty as mentioned in Order-in-Original, on instructions from their client, they are w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
