2017 (2) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rep. by Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the respondent. Per B. Ravichandran: The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 31.02.2006 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II. The impugned order confirmed central excise duty liability of Rs. 75,444/- on the appellant and imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Ld. Counsel, though submitted agains .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asked to provide their comments, no reply has been received. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is found to be factually correct as per the appeal records. Despite repeated opportunities, the Revenue could not submit an explanation towards such discrepancy. We note that the Bench has given specific directi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X