9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondents. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - These are two appeals against the imposition of penalty on the Company and the Managing Director for fake credits in RG 23A Part II and PLA. 2. When the cases were called, none was present on behalf of either appellants. However, we have taken up the matter for consideration on the basis of pleadings made in the appeal petitions. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was fixed as per their request on 7-8-1995 and none of them appeared or requested for adjournment. He also mentioned that after issue of show cause notice, no defence replies were filed by them in spite of several reminders, and finally, the defence reply would be filed only after a great deal of pursuation by the department. In this connection he relied upon the decision in the case of UP Coopera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the case of Fuji Reprographic Industries v. CCE - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 883 (Tribunal) which renders a manufacturer who takes credit of duty in respect of inputs wrongly liable to a penalty. Knowledge or belief is not ingredients in attracting penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Rules. 4. We have perused both the appeals filed by both the appellants and have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering total amount of credit wrongly taken by the appellant's company, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the amount of penalty imposed is reduced from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs. We order accordingly. 5. Penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs has been imposed on the other respondents, Shri Pawan Kumar Garg being Managing Director under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules. As per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
