9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Shankar, Member (T)]. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent, after waiving deposit. 2. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in this appeal confirms the demand for Rs. 10,82,004/- and equivalent amount of penalty imposed on the appellant by the order of the Additional Commissioner which was impugned before him. 3. Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustained, citing for the purpose the decision of the Tribunal in Arti Textiles v. CCE - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 207. 4. The goods that were removed consist of 11 items of capital goods. Counsel for the appellant is not able to tell us in reply to our question as to what exactly was the human errors , as a result of which there was a failure to pay duty; all that he could say was that some officers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst penalty imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC. The bench noted that Rule 173Q was not in force at the time when the act in respect of which penalty was imposed took place. Therefore, in the absence of apportionment, the penalty was not legally sustainable. In the case before us, this situation does not exist. Both Section 11AC and Rule 173Q were in force and penalty could have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
