PRAVIN N. SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. Anand Nainawati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though Rule has been served on the respondents, no one appears for the department. This Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

(2.) WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/ - imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 now Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001?