9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Shri S.N. Srivastava, ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant prays for dispensing with the penalty amount of Rs. 1 lakh and stay the recovery thereof imposed upon them by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna under the provisions of Rule 209A. Arguing for the applicant he submits that the penalty has been imposed upon them by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of penalty under Rule 209A was not warranted. 2. Countering the arguments Shri S.N. Ghosh, ld. JDR submits that the applicant was in knowledge of the fact that no duty was being paid by M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. and the provisions of Rule 209A has been rightly invoked. He submits that while entering into an agreement, Excise duty is required to be shown separately. He also draws at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al ingredients. As such onus lies heavily upon the department to show that the person upon whom the penalty has been imposed under the said rule was knowing or was having reasons to know that the goods in question were liable to confiscation having been cleared without payment of duty. No such onus seems to have been discharged in the instant case by the Revenue. The mere fact that the work was be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
