CCE Vs. BARKAT DYEING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .S. Kang, Vice President 1. Heard ld. SDR. The respondent made a request to decide the appeal on merit.

(2.) THE Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby penalty imposed on the respondent was set aside on the ground that duty paid even prior to show -cause notice.

(3.) THE contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. which has already been set aside by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The finding of the adjudicating authority is that the respondents clandestinely removed the goods without payment of duty, therefore, the respondents are liable for penalty. The respondents in their written submissions relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE v. Malbro Appliances Pvt. Ltd. .