9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reduced the duty and set aside the penalty. 2. The learned SDR has contended that the Director of the respondents company, in his statement had conceded the non-accountal of excess goods as well as shortage of the raw material and that the respondents even debited the entire duty amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f there had been no checking in the factory. He has also contended that since there was no apportionment of the penalty amount under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, the entire penalty has been rightly set aside. 4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows that die Director of the respondents company was present at the time when the physical checking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the duty amount cannot be sustained. 5. Similarly, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding setting aside of the penalty on the ground that the duty was deposited before the issuance of the show cause notice and that there was no apportionment of the penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, also cannot be sustained legally. It is difficult to conclude that the duty was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of duty, the respondents had already deposited 25% of the penalty in terms of the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, that deposit is sufficient to meet the requirement of law under Section 11AC of the Act. 7. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the order-in-original is restored. The appeal of the Revenue stands allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
