1998 (12) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Nayyar, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T) ]. The appellants manufactured passenger cars. On a visit to their factory premises, the officers detected instances of double taking of credit in 11 cases against the same bills of entry, use of dutiable components without payment of duty for repairs of cars, non-reversal of credit on inputs sent out for processi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cate for the appellants and Shri D.K. Nayyar, ld. DR for the Revenue. 4. Shri Madhav Rao reiterated all the arguments made before the ld. Commissioner. He specifically sought reduction in the quantum of penalty on two aspects. The first is that where they used certain dutiable components in the repairs of defective cars, the assessees were in the habit of paying duty periodically and generally .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere should be no penalty attracted on this ground. This argument does not take away the fact that the cars were not accounted. The reasons for such non-accountal have already been analysed by the Commissioner and rejected. In the submissions made by the assessees, we do not see anything which the Commissioner has not seen. 6. Therefore, we find no reason for giving reduction in the quantum of p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X