TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 604/2007-EX[SM] - A/71193-71194/2016-SM[BR] - Dated:- 24-8-2016 - Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, (Supdt.) (A.R.) for the Department MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for the Appellants Per Mr. Anil Choudhary The appellants are in appeal against order in appeal dated 30/11/2006 by which the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the act read with rule 25 of CER, 2002, have been enhanced. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants manufactures of co extruded multilayer poly films had cleared their manufactured products and were also availing Cenvat credit on the inputs. Based on intelligence that the appellants were engaged in under valuation/misdeclaration of the goods cleared by them the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order was pleased to enhance the amount of penalty equal to the amount of tax on the appellant company and also enhanced the penalty imposed on Shri Vijay Kanodia to ₹ 50,000/-observing that the case is not fit for lenient imposition of penalty as the evasion has taken place by way of mis-declaring the description of finished goods. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that it is an admitted fact that the appellants had cleared the goods manufactured and the waste, upon payment of Excise duty on the basis of invoices. It is further admitted fact that the Revenue have not found any quantity cleared, not recorded in the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be put on notice as to the exact nature of contravention for which the assessee was liable under the provisions of section 173Q. This having not been done the Tribunal's findings cannot be faulted. 4. The learned A.R. for Revenue relies on the impugned order and further relies on the ruling of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. 2006(202) ELT 398 , wherein under the facts and circumstances that the assessee had removed finished goods without issue of invoice and without payment of duty and further the said duty was deposited prior to the issue of show cause notice, the High Court observed, once a case is covered by situation as stated in the said section mere deposit of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
