2003 (4) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(J)]. - This is an appeal filed by Revenue. 2. The Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in dropping the penalty imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 3. On going through the impugned order, we find that the point at issue has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Para 8 of the impugned order which reads as under - "8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise Rules, 1944. I also find that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in the case of H. Guru Investment (North India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CEGAT, New Delhi reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 8 (All.) held that "Penalty - Demand notice and notice imposing penalty issued to the Petitioner Tribunal cancelled the demand notice on the ground of being time-barred but kept the amount of penalty to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty of Rs. 41,400/- on Shri K.V. Sivarama Prasad, the Chief Executive Officer under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is concerned, I find that unless the specific allegations are set out in Show Cause Notice, and there is elaboration as to how ingredients of Rule 209A are satisfied, penalty under Rule 209A is not sustainable and further mens rea is an essential ingredient for imposing pen....