TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (7) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue has come in appeal as Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents M/s. Deco Ceramics Industries. 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents. I, observe that at the time of earlier hearing also on 9-6-2003, no one was present on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. I, therefore, take up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) relied upon the decision in the case of Punjab Recorder Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 41 (Tribunal) and Agarwal Pharmaceutical v. CCE - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 190 (T) = 2002 (101) ECR 82 (Tri.). He further mentioned that the period involved in the present matter is 1997 which is after the insertion of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and as such provisions of said section are attracted and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the statute book. The Tribunal further observed that "Rule 173Q has been mentioned but in the absence of apportionment of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, we hold that imposition of penalty is not sustainable in law." The facts in the present matter are entirely different inasmuch as the duty demand is for the period in which provisions of Section 11AC were in operation. I, therefore,....