9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 967/CE/DLH/2001, dated 16-10-2001 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Under the impugned order, duty of Rs. 3,08,328.30 has been demanded from the appellants. Further, penalty of Rs. 4.75 lakhs has also been confirmed. 2. Ld. Counsel representing the appellants submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that in the absence of any contumacious conduct by the appellants, penalty could not be imposed. According to him, a short-levy simplicitor does not attract penalty under the law. He also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of SIJ Electronics Computer Tech. Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Kochi - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 528 (Tribunal - Bangalore). 3. We have heard ld. DR also and perused the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing penalty does not arise. In the present case, the duty demand has been restricted to six months by the Commissioner, thereby holding that this is not a case involving any dishonest conduct by the appellants. Relief in penalty is, therefore, warranted. 5. In view of what is stated above, the issue of valuation of scrap is remanded to the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner for a fresh decision. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
