2008 (2) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - By this ROM revenue is contending that there is an apparent mistake on the face of the Final Order No. 751/07 dated 29-6-07 and seek for recall of the order and for confirmation of demand for larger period including enhancement of penalty in terms of OIO. The finding portion of the Final Order No. 751/07 dated 29-6-2007 in par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is surprising to note that the Assistant Commissioner has not only confirmed the differential duty but also imposed penalty. Since, it is clear that there is no suppression of facts with an intend to evade Central Excise duty, the differential duty could not have been confirmed invoking longer period under proviso to Section 11A. The impugned order is set aside. We allow the appeal on account of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Rs. 5,000/-. If the revenue was aggrieved with these facts then they ought to have filed cross-appeal which they have not done. The Tribunal after noting all the disclosure of facts agreed with the Commissioner's finding that there was no suppression of facts as noted in the order extracted (supra). He submits that there is no mistake in the Final Order. 4. We have considered the submiss....