2008 (7) TMI 785

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant. Shri G.K. Godbole, Manager, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - E/1678, 1918/03 : These two appeals are against orders in appeal nos. BPS (162) 291/03 dated 23-5-2003, BPS (82) 284/2003 dated 18-3-2003. Considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. 2. In these two appeals, the representative of the appellant submits tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mission that they should have done the valuation in appropriate way. 3. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while ascertaining the question of imposition of penalty held as under : "On the question of imposing penalty, it is to be observed that there did not appear any wilful act on the part of the appellants to evade payment of the Central Excise duty. It was only because of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that no such heavy penalty was required to be imposed upon them will hold some water. The case laws cited by the appellants in support of their contentions are found quite relevant." 4. It could be noticed from the reproduced finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is a categorical finding that there is no mens rea alleged against appellant and their act was not with intention t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;Considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. 7. Ld. SDR submits that in this case the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of the demand of duty on one of the product. It is his submission that he could not have remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority after the amendment to Section 35A ....