2016 (12) TMI 1271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Revision dated 04-7-2011, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cochin, vide which the Commissioner imposed penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 in  exercise of her revisionary power.   2.  Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a ban....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The appellant refuted the allegation in the Show-Cause Notice but the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,69,956/-  and also  appropriated Rs. 1,96,263/- paid by the appellant and imposed penalties  under Sections 76 & 77 vide his Order-in-Original dated 06.7.2009.   After 23 months, the Commissioner issued a notice dated 20.6.2011 under Secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has violated the principles of natural justice as the appellant has not been heard and the impugned order was passed ex-parte.  In support of this submission, he relied upon the following case laws : (i) Uma Nath Pandey, reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 268 (S.C.) (ii) Amit Kumar Saha, reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 794 (Tribunal)] (iii) SAIL, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 366 (Mad.) (iii)  Akbar Travels of India (P) Ltd., reported in 2015 (38) STR 957 (Ker.) (iv)  Motor World, reported in 2012 (27) S.T.R. 225 (kar.) (v)  Haiku Motors Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R. 410 (Tri.-Bang.)] Further, he relied upon the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in their own case [Order dated 0.3.2016 in Appeal No. ST/....