2009 (1) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is clearly deficient as it does not disclose the substantial questions of law which arises from the impugned order requiring the consideration of this court. Nevertheless, we heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was perverse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fficers on very date when they visited the factory, as also, the fact that they had sufficient funds in the Cenvat credit and PLA for discharging the duty; was of opinion the matter called for a reduction in redemption fine, we see no reason to disagree. The Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in the matter. 2. As regards the deletion of demand of Rs. 22,829/- on account of goods found sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ounting to Rs. 22,829/- in respect of goods found short under Section 11AC of the Act. It is thus clear that a substantive part of the penalty referred to rule 173Q and was not imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC. The Department, however, did not agitate the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. In these circumstances no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal with respect to reduct .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X