9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, Advocate for Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/ VSK/85 to 87/2009 dated 25.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the relevant period 2004-05, the appellant had availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. At the outset, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that there was confusion during the financial year 2004-05 in computing the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods, which included the value of clearance of exempted and non-excisable goods also. Hence, the appellant incorrectly availed the benefit of exemption notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s). He submits that before the authorities below also liability of duty was not disputed. Besides, the Appellant has not informed the department about the computation of the aggregate value of clearance for the Financial year 2004-05, before availing the exemption in the year 2004- 05, hence extended period has been rightly invoked and penalty imposed. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record to suggest their personal involvement in the case. In these circumstances, imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Director and the employee, in our opinion, is unwarranted and unjustified, and accordingly set aside. 7. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant company (E/701/2009) is partly allowed to the extent of extending the benefit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
