9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. While conducting a road patrol on 29-10-96, it was observed that the appellant company cleared the impugned goods without payment of duty. Hence, a show cause notice dated 22-4-97 was issued which was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 31-10-97. On appeal, from the appellant side and from the department side, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 19-1-99 rejected the party s appeal and remanded the department s appeal to examine the aspect afresh with regard to appreciation of Section 11AC. In the de novo proceedings, after due process of law, the lower authority passed the impugned order. 3. Aggrieved over this order, the appellant-company preferred an appeal before this forum. In the grounds of appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods. He has also prepared weighing slips. The department has not disputed the above facts. The learned advocate during the hearing had stated that there was sufficient balance in RG 23A Part II at the time of clearance of goods and further stated that it was only a procedural lapse in not debiting the duty amount before clearance. Considering the facts of the case and on perusal of the case records, I agree with the arguments of the learned advocate. She further pleaded that the lower authority had already imposed penalty and redemption fine under Rule 173Q. He also confirmed the demand of duty which has been already paid on 1-11-96 and 5-11-96. The learned advocate drew my attention to the case law reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 98 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of justice will be met if the appellants are directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- only. Even in the case of Steel Industries the Tribunal observed that availability of sufficient balance in the PLA is a matter which could be kept in view in imposing penalties for infracting Rules and the Tribunal had reduced the penalty in that case also. Similarly, in view of the fact that the goods were cleared only to Central Warehousing Corporations, a Central Government Undertaking, where the goods were properly accounted for, a token redemption fine should be sufficient. I, therefore, reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 6,000/- only. The appeal is thus allowed partly. 7. Since the facts and circumstances of the said case law is squarely applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
