2000 (5) TMI 888

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... na Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Shri S.C. Rudra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants admits the duty confirmed by the Commissioner, but only challenges the quantum of personal penalty imposed upon them under the provisions of Rule 173Q which is to the tune of Rs. 30,000.00. 2. Arguing on the appeal, learned Advocate submits that the duty has been confirmed against them in respect of supp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mputing the quantum of duty against them, though this plea was not raised by them at any point of time, probably because of the reason that they were not registered with the Central Excise Department. However, this factor is a mitigating factor for deciding the quantum of penalty against the appellants. As such, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the cond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X