2004 (10) TMI 530

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. The appellant is a PSU Unit. They have obtained permission from the Committee of Secretaries to pursue the appeal. These appeals arise from a common Order-in-Original Nos. 49 to 54/2002, dated 30-9-2002 by which the Commissioner has dropped all the proceedings initiated for recovery of duty, by six show cause notices. However, he has proc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for imposition of penalty. He submits that the provision is not applicable to the facts of this case. He relies on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159)]. He further relies on the judgment of the Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Pushpaman Forgings Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 490 (Tribunal) where the Tribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase, no such thing has happened. Furthermore, the argument raised by the Counsel why Rule 57-I is not applicable to the facts of this case is a well taken ground. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty is imposable and, therefore, the penalty imposed in the matter is set aside by allowing these appeals with consequential relief. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court) - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X