Cce, Indore Vs. M/S P.C. Chaturvedi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this appeal, the revenue has challenged the order of the commissioner (appeals) setting aside the penalty imposed on the party under rule 209a of the central excise rules on the ground that the provisions of that rule were not attracted in the case and on the further ground that the case was squarely covered by the ratio of the tribunal's decision in the case of ramesh chandra mittal vide final order no. 638/2000-a dated 9.8.2000.2. examined the records and heard ld. jdr, sh. swatantra kumar for the appellant. there is no representation for the respondents.3. ld. dr has reiterated the grounds of the appeal. i have perused the grounds. the revenue has not challenged the finding of the commissioner (appeals) that the case was squarely covered on merits in favour of the assessee by the tribunal's decision in the aforesaid case of ramesh chandra mittal. therefore, the challenge against the order of the commissioner (appeals) is not sustainable. the appeal is rejected.

Judgment:
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty imposed on the party under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the provisions of that rule were not attracted in the case and on the further ground that the case was squarely covered by the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ramesh Chandra Mittal vide Final Order No. 638/2000-A dated 9.8.2000.

2. Examined the records and heard ld. JDR, Sh. Swatantra Kumar for the appellant. There is no representation for the respondents.

3. Ld. Dr has reiterated the grounds of the appeal. I have perused the grounds. The revenue has not challenged the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the case was squarely covered on merits in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal's decision in the aforesaid case of Ramesh Chandra Mittal. Therefore, the challenge against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. The appeal is rejected.