2001 (2) TMI 711

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Order-in-Appeal No. 302/98 (M-II), dated 8-10-1998 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the duty liability of Rs. 2,99,294/- in respect of inputs and Capital Goods removed without payment of duty during the years 1992-93 to 1995-96. However, he set aside the mandatory penalty imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act as it does not have retrospective effect. The penalty of Rs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ants. The ld. Counsel pointed out that it was only a procedural default on the part of the appellants in loaning the inputs/capital goods to the neighbouring industry in terms of trade practice. The appellants had merely committed procedural irregularities in not taking permission from the department. They held bona fide belief and hence duty and penalty cannot be confirmed. 3. Ld. D.R. for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unit and in the facts and circumstances have pleaded waiver of penalty as there is no intention to evade duty intentionally. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions and on the perusal of the impugned orders, I notice that there is no dispute of removal of inputs and capital goods without payment of duty by the Appellants and without observing any of the formalities. The Appellants were du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X