2005 (6) TMI 578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see) and E/560/2004 (filed by the Revenue) are against one order of the Commissioner (Appeals). After examining the records and hearing both sides in these two appeals, I find that the original authority had, apart from confirming a demand of duty against the assessee, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,66,975/- (equal to duty) on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The first appellate auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Tri.) (ii) Premier Instruments & Controls Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore. Ld. DR has reiterated the relevant findings of the original authority and the first appellate authority. After considering the case law cited by ld. Consultant, I find that, the above issue is no more res integra. It is settled law that where duty was paid prior to issue of show-cause notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld justify a penalty on the appellant under Rule 209A. This Rule could be invoked for penalising a person only when it was found that he physically dealt with the goods knowing/believing that the goods were liable to confiscation. In this case, there is no finding by any of the authorities that Shri V. Lakshmanan dealt with any excisable goods in the above manner. Ld. Consultant has relied on the ....