2009 (1) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....- Being aggrieved with that part of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside penalty imposed upon the respondents, imposed by the Original Adjudicating Authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard Dr. M.K. Rajak, ld. SDR. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 3. For better appreciation, I reproduce ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant No.1 are upheld. As regard imposition of penalty on appellant No. 3 Shri Ashokbhai T. Desai, proprietor of appellant No.1, since the proprietorship firm M/s. Meghana Cement Depot. And the proprietor do not have separate identity, as held by the Tribunal Mumbai in the case of CCE, Surat-1 v. N.D. Textiles - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 381 (Tri.-Mum.) penalty on the appellant No. 3 proprietor is set a....