9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dated 27-7-2001 was served on them demanding duty of Rs. 6,31,356/- in respect of wire ropes which have been allegedly removed from their factory in a clandestine manner by resorting to suppression of production. The notice also proposes imposition of penalty, etc. The notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, who confirmed the demand to the extent of Rs. 6,18,719/- + Additional amount of Rs. 8,473/-. In addition, penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, etc., were imposed. 3. In the order-in-appeal after going through the evidence on record, it has been held by the Commissioner (Appeals) that out of the total demand of Rs. 6,18,719/- an amount of Rs. 1,44,428/- deserves to be set aside. Accordingly he confirmed the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t restored). 4. The respondent, M/s. D.P. Wire Products have filed a cross-objection against the Department s grounds of appeal. In the cross-objection however, they have also prayed to set aside the order of the Commissioner and hold that there was no clandestine removal. The respondents did not file any appeal against the order-in-appeal, as required under Section 35B(1). 5. Heard both sides. The learned DR supports the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and challenges the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals). My attention has been invited to observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it has been noted that - So far as the appellant s argument that the case has been made on assumption and presumption, it may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he verification carried out by him by deputing an officer to ascertain the correct weight of the reel of wire ropes. 8. I have considered the rival arguments. So far as the first argument of the learned Counsel to treat cross-objection as an appeal against the entire order is concerned, I find that, there is no merit in the same. The appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, in terms of provisions contained in Section 35(B)(2) of the Central Excise Act. Cross-objection against such appeal is provided in Section 35B(4). The challenge in the said appeal filed under Section 35B(2) by the Commissioner, related or is directed only against the limited portion of the order which grants partial relief to the respondents. A cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strongly pleaded that keeping in view the extent of reduction in duty demand the relief granted in terms of reduction in redemption fine and setting aside of the penalty under Rule 173Q, are disproportionately on the higher side. 11. After hearing both the sides, I observe that reduction in duty demand occurred to a limited extent while the redemption fine has been scaled down disproportionately. Therefore, there is a case to raise the redemption fine from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh. The other reliefs ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) do not call for any interference as these are considered adequate to meet the ends of justice. 12. The Revenue s appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the cross-objection is accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
