TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 1043
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Malhotra, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Ld. DR Shri K.P. Singh vehemently opposes the decision taken by the ld. Appellate Authority below exonerating the Respondent from penal consequence of law in respect of penalty imposable under Rule 57-I and Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. His substantial argument is that grant of notification having been abused, the Authorities should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith reasons of decision. 2. According to ld. DR, demand involved although is immaterial the principles involved in a decision is significant. Therefore he draws attention to appreciate the case from the root of the matter submitting that when the Respondent failed to give declaration that the goods have suffered duty which is patent from show cause notice and the manufacturer has not depos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent, the matter should not be reopened. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. It may be stated that fraud nullifies even a decree, once the transaction suffers from vice of fraud. No doubt the Respondent's conduct may not be impeachable without deliberate contravention and collusion with the manufacturer who has issued the invoice. The manner of examination done b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... third wrong right. Because some relief was granted according to the citation made by the ld. Adjudicating Authority this case may not be within the four of the decisions. Therefore unreasoned and cryptic order passed should go back to him restoring the matter for examination of the ingredient of the penalty provision when a clear mandate was there in the show cause notice for levy of penalty unde....