9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants applied for fixation of Annual Capacity of Production with effect from 1-9-97, which was fixed provisionally on 26-2-98 and then finally the ACP was determined on 23-12-98. In the meanwhile, they were issued several show cause notices and these have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther show cause notice bearing the same number i.e. C.No. FE-13/KIU/KLG. I/97/537 dated 3-4-98, was also issued to the appellants demanding Rs. 1,01,915.50 (Rupees one lakh one thousand nine hundred and fifteen and paise fifty), which has not been adjudicated upon. It is the claim of the appellants that if the same show cause notice is taken into account, then there will be no duty-liability again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the second show cause notice bearing the same number and date has not been adjudicated upon, is of no consequence. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that the jurisdictional Superintendent has not been careful while issuing the show cause notices. It cannot be explained how the two notices have been issued from his office on the same day bearing the same des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n issued by mistake. 6. As regards the argument of the learned Advocate that this is not a case deserving imposition of such a high amount of penalty, we find force in his submission. However, since the duty demanded as per the revised ACP has also not been paid subsequently, some penalty is imposable. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty of Rs. 2,04,478.05 (Rupees two lakhs four thousand four hun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
