TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - In the application it is stated that the amount directed by the order dated 23-10-2009 was deposited before passing of the order. Although that being done on 26-8-2008, for no instruction with the appearing counsel, Tribunal passed its order dated 23-10-2009. Consequently, further deposit was unwarranted. This averment appears to be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he confiscation and redemption fine. He did not consider proper to levy penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. He also set aside the penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It appears that to deter recurrence of offence the authority considered it proper to impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The respondent is not in ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l terms, the appellate authority considered that confiscation was unwarranted. Today there is no evidence led by Revenue to show that modus operandi of the respondent was to cause evasion. Accordingly, there is no scope to interfere with the first appellate order on this count. 8. So far as shortage of stock is concerned the authority has found that there was no cogent evidence before him to....