2002 (4) TMI 888

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d with non-confirmation of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of order-in-original and holding that the same is not liable to be imposed in terms of Rules 57U(6) and 173Q(1)(bb) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He has clearly noted that the appellants had reversed the credit to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs and debited the PLA vide entry in Sl. No. 39/16-3-98 and informed the department on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of any of the provisions of the Act, with intention to evade payment of duty then the penalty has to imposed as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. UOI reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 (S.C.). The ld. Counsel distinguishes these judgments and contend that the appellant s explanation has been accepted by Commissioner of Central Excise but had set aside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion to evade payment of duty. 4. I have heard both sides. On a careful consideration and perusal of the impugned order, I notice that the Commissioner has analysed the entire facts and passed a proper and legal order. He has noted that the department was fully aware of the removal of the machinery on the regular visit. He has also noted that the assessee did not have any intention to evade payme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X