TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act") against order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, reducing penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. 2. Show Cause Notice dated 10.5.2001 was issued to M/s. Aravali India Ltd. fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was high. The relevant observations are:- ".......We, therefore, do not agree with the contention that Rule 173 Q (1) (bbb) cannot be invoked against the appellant. In their reply and their contention before us they have not been able to extricate themselves from the charges levelled against them on their involvement in wrong Modvat availment by M/s Aravali India Ltd. The statements made by autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unit in his individual capacity and since no finding has been made out against him, we do not find any merits in invoking Rule 209A for imposing penalty on him....." 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. SKF India Ltd. [2009] 239 ELT 385 and Union of ....