9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Member) The appellants are aggrieved by the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 1. Appellants are manufactures of Steel Product viz SS Flats. Appellants were supplying raw materials to one M/s Pawan Jain & Sons (M/s PJS) who were engaged in production of stainless steel utensils and also exported the same. M/s PJS also claimed rebate of duty paid on excisable raw mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Ashok Chauhan, Director of Duggar Fiber (P) Ltd who were co-noticees. 2. The Revenue filed appeal against the imposition of low penalty of Rs. 5,000/- upon the appellants and other co-noticees (M/s Parvathi Ltd. and itsdirector) on the ground that the penalty imposed does not commensurate with their acts of omission and commission. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause the vehicles carried more load than the loading capacity as mentioned the Registration Certificate it would be highly erroneous to conclude that appellants have not supplied the consignments. He also submitted that over loading is a common phenomenon in transportation of goods. Further, that the invoices were issued in 2006, where as the show cause notice is dated 5.12.2011 by invoking exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions were not in existence. Needless to say that penalty cannot be imposed upon the appellants under a provision which was not in existence when the alleged act was not made punishable. The appellants also relied upon the decisions of their co-noticee Duggar Fiber (P) Ltd in Final Order No. A/51174-51175/2015-SM/BR dated 7.4.2015 which is held in favour of the assessee on the ground that sub cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
