2015 (10) TMI 1123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate For the Respondent : Shri D. Singh, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing mandatory penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of chewing tobacco and unmanufactured tobacco. They were working under compound levy scheme and paying duty under Chew....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Revenue. The Ld. Commissioner (A) set aside the order of adjudication and imposed the penalty as proposed in the show cause notice. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not violated any Rules of the said rules. Therefore, penalty under section 11 AC is not imposable. He drew my attention to the impugned order wherein the Ld. Commissioner (A) has relied on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of packing machine. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 6. In the impugned order the Ld. Commissioner (A) has relied on the Panchnama dated 30.03.2012. Admittedly, the show cause notice has been issued on 26.09.2011. Therefore, the Panchnama dated 30.03.2012 have no relevance to impose penalty on the appellant in this case. Further, I find that in show cause notice itself it is ....