2019 (4) TMI 1077

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri V.S. Apte, Advocate for Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/ VSK/85 to 87/2009 dated 25.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the relevant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. At the outset, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that there was confusion during the financial year 2004-05 in computing the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods, which included the value of clearance of exempted and non-excisable goods also. Hence, the appellant incorrectl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that before the authorities below also liability of duty was not disputed. Besides, the Appellant has not informed the department about the computation of the aggregate value of clearance for the Financial year 2004-05, before availing the exemption in the year 2004- 05, hence extended period has been rightly invoked and penalty imposed.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is concerned, we find that there is no evidence on record to suggest their personal involvement in the case. In these circumstances, imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Director and the employee, in our opinion, is unwarranted and unjustified, and accordingly set aside. 7. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant company (E/701/2009) is partl....