9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (T)]. The respondents in this case took Modvat credit of the additional duty of Customs paid twice in as much as on the same date two entries were made in the concerned register on 13-10-1992. They had voluntarily reversed this on 5-11-1992 when this fact came to their notice. Later, show cause notice was issued on 28-12-1992 seeking imposition of penalty upon them. The Asstt. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e officers of the Enforcement Directorate and other Administrative authorities perform quasi-judicial functions and do not act as courts but only as administrators and adjudicators. In the proceedings before them, they do not try the accused for commission of any crime (not merely an offence) but determine the liability of the contravener for the breach of his obligations imposed under the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth in RG 23A Part II and PLA should be taken together into consideration. They have removed the finished product on payment of duty by debiting the credit entry, which was taken wrongly, in RG 23A Part II for which penalty is imposable on them. Their reliance on the decision in the case of Garden Reach Shipbuilders case is misplaced as in that case there were only irregularities in not adjusting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (78) E.L.T. 87 that the absence of mala fide on the part of the assessee can be taken into consideration for quantifying the amount of redemption fine and penalty. It is also observed that there is no allegation in the show cause notice or any finding in the impugned order that such wrong credit has been taken by the appellants repeatedly. I, therefore, feel that the ends of justice will meet if a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
