9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by M/s. Rallis India Ltd. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority demanding duty of Rs. 11,026/- not paid by the assessee on clearances of its final products during the period 27-2-93 to 24-1-96. The appellant cleared certain quantities of such f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty. 2. The grounds taken by the appellants are reiterated by the learned counsel. It is submitted that there was no suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty and, therefore, the demand confirmed pursuant to a show cause notice invoking extended period was not sustainable. Penalty could not be imposed under Section 11AC as the transactions had taken place in January, 1996 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed on the appellants invoking Section 11AC is not correct. The transactions attracted penalty under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We also find that equal penalty is a little too harsh in the facts of the case. In the circumstances, we take a lenient view as regards the penalty and reduce the same from Rs. 11,026/ to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). But for this relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
