2011 (3) TMI 685

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.L. Deshpande, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. -  The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein mandatory penalty under Section 11AC was dropped against the respondents relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd., reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri. - LB), on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is imposable on the respondents or not in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Ld. DR contended that in this case the lower appellate authority has relied on the decision of Machino Montell (I) Ltd. (supra) and dropped the penalty against the respondent, which is not a good law in the present scenarioand as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty under Section 11AC is not leviable. 5. Heard and considered. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we have examined the allegations made against the respondent and paragraph 8 of the impugned order has lots of observations favouring the respondent, which are reproduced here-in-under :- "From the above it was clear that assesses No. 1 has wrongly ....