TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM [2002 (11) TMI 234 - CEGAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that penalty is not imposable when duty demand is deposited before the issue of show-cause notice - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/359/2007-DB - - - Dated:- 7-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri Pakshirajan, AR Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. In the impugned order, a part of the demand was permitted to be adjusted against CENVAT credit of ₹ 22,18,421/- and the balance amount was appropriated out of the amount already deposited by the respondent. The applicable interest also stands paid by the respondent. The learned Commissioner, however, refrained from imposing any penalty upon the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The learned Commissioner has given the following reasons for non-imposition of penalty. 28. The next issue for consideration is imposition of penalty on the notice company and its Managing Partner for non-compliance of excise laws as alleged in the show-cause notice. The noticee has pleaded that the non-compliance of the laws was on account of a misbelief that M/s. KSEB was liable to pay t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India also. Therefore, in conformity with the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, I do not propose to impose any penalty on the notice company or its Managing Partner as proposed in the show-cause notice. 5. The learned Commissioner has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. reported in 2003 (161) ELT 285. We note t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
