9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. The respondent is a Director of M/s. Acchyut Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur. The Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dt. 30-8-05 confirmed duty demand of Rs. 1,99,917/- against M/s. Acchyut Packaging Pvt. Ltd. under proviso to Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and besides this imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Acchyut Packaging Pvt. Ltd. unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) s order upholding the penalty of Rs. 2,500/- on the respondent is wrong. 3. Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that from the language of Rule 26 is clear that what it prescribes is upper limit for penalty and not a minimum penalty. In view of this, he pleaded that there is no merit in the Revenue s appeal. 4. I have carefully considered the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is discretionary and as such this rule does not prescribe any minimum penalty. The Revenue s contention would have been correct if instead of the words not exceeding before the expression - the duty on such goods or rupees ten thousand, whichever is greater , the words - equal to been there. In view of this, I find no merit in the Revenue s appeal and the same is dismissed. (Order dictat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
