TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Per Archna Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he set aside the penalty on the respondents while confirming the duty of Rs.1,04,819/-, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri Fateh Singh, SDR for the Revenue and Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the respondents. 3. As per facts on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on authorised signatories. 5. The respondents challenge the above order before Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the shortages found in the stock of finished goods was not on account of clandestine removal. However, they admitted their duty liability and also paid the same inasmuch as shortages were there. They however, challenged the imposition of penalty upon them on the ground that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e etc. Hence no penalty stands imposed. He accordingly, set aside the penalty on both the respondents. Hence, the present appeal. 6. After going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), I find favour with the observations and consequent finding arrived at by him. Admittedly the duty was sought to be raised and confirmed against the respondents only on the ground of shortages of the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the case of CCE, Kanpur vs. Kapoor Print Pack Pvt. Ltd. reported as [2011 (264) ELT 142 (Tri-Del)], by observing that there was no admission by the authorised signatory as regards the removal of the inputs and the admission was only for shortages, imposition of penalty was not justified. 8. The Revenue s only contention is that inasmuch as the respondents have not challenged the duty confirma....