9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR. C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] This early hearing application is filed by the applicant against Order-in-Original No. 20/2011 (C.E) Commr. dated 31.10.2011. 2. Learned Counsel submits that the early hearing application is moved for out of turn hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used the records. 5. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned order on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in imposing penalty on him under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 and findings of the Adjudicating Authority are erroneous. 6. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) allowed the appeals and set aside the demands and penalties imposed. Appellant's counsel in this appeal, was correct in stating that if no demand survives on main appellant, the question of imposing penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the present appellant will not stand scrutiny of law. 8. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order that imposed pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
