2006 (10) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Heard both sides. 2. In the instant appeal there is a delay in payment of duty for the period from 16-12-1998 to 31-12-1998 which was supposed to be paid by 31-12-1998, but it was paid in March, 1999 and for the period from 16-4-2000 to 30-4-2000, it was paid in May 2000. 3. The appellants are engaged in processing the textile fabrics falling under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of CETA, 1985 with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s reduced penalty from Rs. 15,38,710/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 4. The ld. counsel for the appellants relied upon the following decisions :- (i) CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd., 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB) (ii) CCE, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, 2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar.) (iii) CCE, Madras v. Jkon Engineering (P) Ltd., 2005 (67) RLT 157 (Mad.) (iv) Ras .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty as laid down under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. According to the ld. DR in Sony India Ltd. the Supreme Court had set out the similar guidelines as seen from para 7 of the judgment [2004 (167) E.L. T. 385 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X