2011 (4) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 dated 27.08.2009 and corrigendum dated 14.9.2009.   2. None appears for the respondent. In fact, the notice of hearing is returned with the remarks left . The respondent has not replied to the notice, has not appeared before the original authority and also not appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals).   3. Heard learned DR.   4.1 The show cause notice was issued to the respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 11AC was also proposed in the show cause notice.   (ii) That the adjudicating authority though recorded his findings that the party is liable for penal action under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 yet had imposed a very nominal penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- only under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.   (iii) That the Adjudic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder-in-Original of Adjudicating Authority and allowed the appeal may be treated as Order-in-Original is partially allowed to the extent of confirmation of the duty and revenue appeal is allowed for not imposing the penalty under Section 11AC .   5. Learned DR submits that the original authority having confirmed the allegation of removal using parallel invoices ought to have imposed penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 11AC was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 27.8.2009 has chosen to set aside the order of the original authority which inter-alia confirmed the demand of duty. The corrigendum issued by him is also not clear. Learned DR submits that the said corrigendum appears to in the form of review order which is not permissible in terms of Board s Circular No.502/68/99-CX, dated 16.12....