2014 (8) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(AR) For the Respondent : Shri S. Venkatachalam, Advocate JUDGMENT 1. Revenue filed the present appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 53 & 57/2008 (M-IV) dt. 28.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were registered with Central Excise Department for manufacture of LPG Cylinders falling under Chapter 7311 of CETA&....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....27 and Rs. 3.0 lakhs personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules,2002 against the partner of the respondent. 3. The respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who after considering the facts allowed their appeal in the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue filed the present appeal. 4. Ld. A.R reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the conso....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as rightly allowed their appeal since the admissibility of SSI exemption is not under dispute and the only mistake was that their clerical staff who was looking after the accounts and preparing invoices has failed to correct the invoices generated from 1.4.2005 when they again opted for SSI exemption from the beginning of financial year as they were paying duty prior to February 2005 and availing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IOCL for manufacture and supply of LPG cylinders and as per the said contract and the price is fixed on NDP basis. It is also noticed that the respondents after crossing the SSI limit during the relevant period, i.e. 14.5.2005, started paying duty from 15.5.2005 onwards. It is not a case here that respondent have collected in excess of excise duty over and above what was paid. I also find that as ....