9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Misra None present for the appellant. Heard the learned AR for the Revenue. 2. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 31/M-I/2008/264 dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had been manufacturing Air Conditioners and during the relevant period i.e. 1984-85 and 1985-86 manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Hence, the present appeal. 4. In their grounds of appeal, the appellant had pleaded that since there was no intention to evade payment of duty, therefore, imposition of penalty on them under erstwhile Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not warranted. 5. Learned AR for the Revenue has submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty at the same level. He further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), after taking into consideration the reduction in liability of duty, reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-, therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order is not bad in law. 6. We find that in the second round of de novo proceeding, the adjudicating authority after analyzing the evidence on record redetermined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
