2003 (3) TMI 506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 20-9-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the Order-in-Original dated 23-4-2001 of the adjudicating authority. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. On carrying out the physical verification of the stock lying in the factory of the respondents by the Officers of the Central Exci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tory premises towards the shortage fabrics and accordingly reduced the duty to Rs. 14,813/- with equal amount of penalty. He had, however, set aside the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Rules and reduced the penalty against the Director, Shri J.K. Jain to Rs. 2,000/-. 3. No appeal by the Revenue questioning the reduction in the penalty on the Director of the company, Shri J.K. Jain, had been filed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the duty as well as the penalty under Section 11AC. He had rightly set aside the penalty under Section 173Q on the ground that the penalty under Section 11AC had been also imposed on the respondents. I do not find any legal infirmity in this impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such the same is upheld. 6. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being without any mer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X