2006 (2) TMI 567

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ri V. Valte, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In this case the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Petroleum products. The appellants were consuming captively heavy petroleum stock/low sulphur heavy stock/residual fuel o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rn was used in refinery - benefit of exemption shall not be in respect of fuel used in the manufacture of electricity which was disposed of, otherwise than use in the refinery. 3. In respect of imposition of penalty, the contention of the appellant is that they had paid the duty before issuance of show cause notice and also contended that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Union of India reported as 1998 (99) E.L.T. 33 held that where the maximum penalty is prescribed under the act, the adjudicating authority has the discretion to impose lesser amount of penalty. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that penalty of Rupees Fifteen lacs is justifiable hence reduced to fifteen lacs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X