2008 (7) TMI 754

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 38/2007 (V-II) CE dated 10-8-2007, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the imposition of penalty. In terms of the Order-in-Original No. 07/2006 dated 29-9-2006, the appellants have already deposited the duty along with interest and are contesting the imposition of penalty. The allegation is tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....our of the assessee and against them. The matter was concluded by the judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Indian Drugs Manufacturer's Assocn. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2008 (222) E.L.T. 22 (Bom.) = 2007 (78) RLT 799 (Bom.)]. After the issue was decided, the appellants revised the valuation method in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 and paid the duty along with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner must fail. Accordingly, the demand of duty raised in the impugned order is sustained. 6. In relation to the penalty imposed on the assessee, we have found substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel. The Commissioner found violations of Rule 4 and 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the assessee. Rule 4 required correct assessment of excisable goods and Rule 6 requir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, U.P. [2005 (190) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] wherein the Apex Court has confirmed the Tribunal's order setting aside the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rule, 2002, as the particular clause of Rule 173Q was not quoted in the show cause notice. The learned Consultant submits that the situation is same in the present case. 2. The learned DR defends the impugned order and submits that....