9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the respondent. 2. The impugned order stand passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in de novo proceedings, when the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal. As per facts on record, the investigations conducted against the respondent by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence revealed that the appellants cleared the CC rods without payment of duty against CT certificate and advance licences produced by the customers during the period May 2003 and June 2003. The buyers sold the goods in the open market resulting in evasion of duty to the extent of Rs. 4,78,570/-. 3. On the above basis, the proceedings were initiated against the respondent for confirmation of demand of duty along with interest and for imposition of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty of the purchaser to make all such necessary enquiries and to ascertain all the facts relating to the property to be purchased prior to committing in any manner and if he does not, it is at his peril. The case here is little different. In this case, the appellants have not purchased any property or in fact anything from the consignee but have actually sold the goods. The above case law is therefore not applicable in this case. I further find that there is nothing on record to suggest the involvement of the appellant and in fact they themselves are victims of fraud played upon them and had to pay the duty from their pockets which otherwise is required to be paid by the consignee. I have also perused the case laws of Hytaisun Magnetic Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. 3 (S.C.). However, I find that there is no quarrel about the legal issue that once imposition of penalty is warranted, there is no option to reduce the penalty. In the present case, the appellate authority has come to a clear finding that no penalty is required to be imposed. Dispute in the present appeal is not on quantum of penalty. Revenue has not challenged the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that in absence of any mala fide on the part of the respondent, penalty provisions are not required to be invoked at all.
6. In view of above, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
