9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the duty liability was not disputed and the assessee had voluntarily discharged the demand much before that was raised by an order of adjudication. According to him, visit by the Excise Authority to the factory premises was made on 21-3-2004 and allegations made by them. The appellant came forward to deposit the duty liability on 5-10-04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed appropriate order dismissing appeal of the assessee before him. No interference to such order is desirable. 3.1 Heard both sides and perused the record. 3.2 The fact of detection and date of deposit of duty remained undisputed by both parties. Therefore, levy of interest prematurely without a demand is uncalled for. Only after demand is crystalised and there was default by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should have been limited to 25% of the duty liability according to Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Considering totally of facts and circumstances of the case, to discourage breach of law as a preventive measure, imposition of token penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) would meet the end of justice. In the result, the appellate order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeal) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
