TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., SDR, for the Appellant. Mr. G.P. Sastry, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - These are 12 Revenue's appeals arising from different Orders-in-Appeal as noted in the Cause Title. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the assessee's appeals by setting aside the Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty under Rule 25 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mer" and that of the appellant as a "consignee". The goods physically moved from the manufacturer's premises (i.e. M/s RINL) to the premises of the appellant, being the consignee. The department contended that if the customer (LTC) of M/s RINL, is a registered dealer, then he would be the "First Stage Dealer" and the appellant (consignee) is the "second stage dealer" and therefore passing on furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was no contravention of any Rule requiring the parties to be imposed with penalty. In an identical issue, the Commissioners of Central Excise, Visakhapatanam/Hyderabad had imposed penalty on two other dealers, M/s. Randsun Engineering Co. and M/s M.M.G. Steel Ltd. Both the appellants had come up in appeal before this Bench and this Bench after due consideration held that no contravention committe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of M/s Randsun Engineering Co. and M/s M.M.G. Steel Ltd. (supra) has set aside the penalty. Therefore the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are correct in law. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) after due consideration noted that the appellants have not violated any of the conditions of law as th....