TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CCE, Rohtak vs. S.B. Packaging Ltd. [2007 (3) TMI 194 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH], where it was held that Penalty equivalent to disputed duty amount under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act,1944 is not leviable where disputed duty amount is deposited prior to issue of SCN - penalty set aside - duty sustained - appeal allowed in part. - Excise Appeal No. 50259 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri Akshat Shrivastava and Shri M R Sharma, learned representatives of the parties. 4. Shri Akshat Shrivastava, learned Counsel submits that he is not pressing the duty. In other words, he accepted the duty demand. However, he contested the levy of penalty. He submits that duty demand was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) CCE vs. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. [2005 (190) ELT 11 Bom]; and 3) CCE , Aurangabad vs. Matsyodari Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [ 2008 (225) ELT 176 Bom] ; and 4) CCE, Rohtak vs. S.B. Packaging Ltd. [2008 (223) ELT 360 (P H)]. 7. By following the ratio laid down in the above mentioned cases, we modify the impugned order and cancel the levy of penalty. Duty is sustained and appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
