2017 (8) TMI 764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. ORDER The present appeals are filed by the appellant as well as their partner Shri Pradeep Sekhri against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 6-12-2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. 2. The appellant is working as a 100% EOU and engaged in the manufacture of welding accessories. The dispute is with reference to Cenvat credit availed by the appellant. R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) also extended the benefit of penalty amount at the reduced level of 25% since the appellant had already discharged the entire liability along with interest of 25% penalty. 4. With the above background, I have heard Shri S. Dabas, Advocate for the appellants and Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the respondent. 5. The only plea made by the ld. Counsel is that the penalty imposed on the partner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ainst the other persons to whom any demand of duty is envisaged but on whom penalty might have been imposed. Since Section 11A under which the present notice has been issued is pari materia to Section 28 of the Customs Act, I am of the view that similar benefit would be extendable to the appellant and partner. 8. In view of the above, the proceedings are to be deemed concluded not only again .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X