9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AC (AR) - for Respondent ORDER Per: Shri Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order and disputing the penalties imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing Aerated Water and clearing the same on payment of duty and filed ER-1 return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the appellant to appropriate the amount already paid and to impose penalties on both the appellants. The matter was adjudicated and duty already paid was appropriated and penalties on both the appellants were also imposed. Aggrieved from the imposition of penalties, the appellants are before me. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that as the figures shown by the appellant volu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors -2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) and Sushil Sharma Vs. CESTAT - 2016 (334) ELT 19 (P&H), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2016 (334) ELT A71 (SC). 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. The tone and toner of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
