2018 (6) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant Shri R., Subramanian, AC (AR) for the Respondent Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of various chemicals and fertilizers and are registered with the Central Excise Department. They cleared waste and scrap of inputs and capital goods during the period from 1.8.2002 to 31.12.2006. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing dema....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounsel Ms. S. Vishnu Priya submitted that the appellant is not challenging the demand of duty for the period from 16.5.2005 to 31.12.2006, but is confining the challenge only on the penalty imposed. She argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The department has not been able to establish any fraud, suppression of facts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....legation. In fact, the ld. counsel has argued that the entire demand has been raised from the invoices/documents furnished by the appellant to the department. There being no suppression brought out from the facts with intent to evade payment of duty, we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the penalty imposed under section 11AC of Central Excise Act. In view thereo....