TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has reduced the penalty from Rs. 6,75,535/- to Rs. 1,20,000/- only. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are small scale manufacturers of ayurvedic cough syrup falling under subheading 3003.39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Excise procedures. They also failed to inform the Department about the fact of manufacture of excisable goods and payment of duty and did not file any returns as required under the Central Excise Rules. On verification of the records maintained by the appellant, it was noticed that their entire products were sold through M/s. Leela Pharma which is owned by the unmarried daughter of the proprie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e service tax paid and eligible CENVAT credit to adjust towards the short-levy worked out on the basis of the documents/evidences produced by the appellant within one month's time by Order-in-Appeal. Further, the appellant was allowed to avail the benefit of 25% of the penalty as available in the first proviso to Section 11AC. Thereafter the lower authority decided the case as per the direction of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 11A proviso of the Act was not justified. He further submitted that the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC by invoking the extended period alleging suppression is not justified as there was no mis-representation on the part of the appellant and the appellant had a bona fide belief that his product is not excisable. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submi....