9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor, Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed this appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) on the ground that penalty imposed by the Appellate Collector was not commensurate with the offence committed by the assessee. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the respondents herein on 29-4-1988 and checked the relevant records. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tt. Collector confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents herein. The respondents went in appeal to the Collector (Appeals) against this order. The Collector (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,000/- and confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector. In so far as the demand of duty was concerned. Against this reduction in penalty, the Collector has filed this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uest to consider the case on merit. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the case on merit. 5. Heard the submissions of the learned JDR, perused the evidence on record and considered it. I find that the Collector (Appeals) in her order dated 25-6-1991 had considered the pleas of the assessee stating that the unit was situated in remote village; that they were not aware of the levy of duty of exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector (Appeals) to reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. 7. No doubt, the quantum of penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence but then there may be mitigating circumstances. However, I have to examine whether these mitigating circumstances which led to the reduction in penalty have been spelt out in the order or not. I find that these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
