9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U.H. Jadhav, JDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by the Department. Heard Shri U.H. Jadhav, learned JDR for the Department. None is present for the respondent. There is an adjournment request from the respondent, which is rejected as the miscellaneous application and the appeal can be decided without the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by the adjudicating Commissioner. We also do not agree with the view that there is no scope for levying of penalty of an amount less than the duty leviable. We do not agree with the Board's reasoning that the Commissioner was bound to impose penalty equal to the amount of duty confirmed in a mechanical manner irrespective of the gravity of a case. 3. Rule 96ZO(3) cited by the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... takings a lot of our time everyday when the same could be spent in deciding more substantive appeals. In any case, direction to impose penalty equal to duty amount in every case, irrespective of the gravity of a case, sounds draconian and we do not approve of it. 5. We, therefore, uphold the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the adjudicating Commissioner and reject the appeal of the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
