TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... None for the Respondent. DATE OF HEARING : 16/03/2010. Per. Rakesh Kumar:- The facts giving rise to these two appeals filed by Revenue are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The Respondent company is engaged in the manufacture of Organic Composite Solvent chargeable to Central Excise Duty under heading 381400.10 of the Central Excise Tariff and Shri Shivmangal Kumar Garg is the Respondent company's au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly, a show cause notice dated 31/8/06 was issued to the Respondent company as well as to Shri Garg, the authorized signatory, for the duty demand of ₹ 1,02,031/- on the goods found short, imposition of penalty on the Respondent company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and on Shri Garg, authorized signatory under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The show cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause notice and in view of this no penalty would be imposable on the Respondent company or its authorized signatory. 1.3 It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Revenue has filed these appeals praying for restoration of penalty on the respondents company and its authorized signatory. 2. Though a notice for hearing had been issued to both the Respondents well in time by re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r (Appeals)'s order is not correct. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned SDR and have perused the records. There is no dispute about the fact that at the time of stock taking, shortage of 25,781 litres of OCS was detected which is a huge quantity and no explanation was given by the Respondent for the shortage and they voluntary paid the duty on the same next day. The circ....