2009 (1) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Member (J) Dr. M.K. Rajak, SDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order].- Being aggrieved with that part of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside penalty imposed upon the respondents, imposed by the Original Adjudicating Authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard Dr. M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hed and the penalty under Section 77 is reduced to Rs. 500/- only. The other orders in respect of appellant No.1 are upheld. As regard imposition of penalty on appellant No. 3 Shri Ashokbhai T. Desai, proprietor of appellant No.1, since the proprietorship firm M/s. Meghana Cement Depot. And the proprietor do not have separate identity, as held by the Tribunal Mumbai in the case of CCE, Surat-1 v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X