9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 9-6-2010 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY: Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Srova, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order] - Being aggrieved with that part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the penalty on the respondent, Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard both the sides duly rep resented by Shri R.S. Srova, learned JDR for the Revenue and Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, learned advocate 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cates from the consignee as required in terms of CBEC Circular No. 579/16/2001-CX, dated 26-6-01 issued under Rule 20(2) of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 but this in itself does not show that there was any mala fide intentions on the part of the appellants. Regarding the case law of Aafloat Textiles, I find that in that case the importer had purchased. SIL which was forged and gold was imported against the said forged SIL. Hon'ble Apex Court held that as per general rule or law, it is the bounden 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate, for which they have been made to suffer by paying duty and interest. There can be no mala flde on the part of the appellant, so as to invite penal action against them. 5. As against the above findings of Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the Revenue, in their grounds of appeal, have merely reiterated that there is no option with the department to reduce the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Dharamendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) E.L.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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
