2009 (6) TMI 905

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner (Appeals), whereby penalty was reduced. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of PVC Pipes. On 5-6-2004, the Central Excise Officers visited the respondent s factory and conducted stock verification. The Central Excise Officers detected shortage of finished goods involving central excise duty of Rs. 1,50,474/-. The Director of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osition of penalty under Section 11 AC is warranted. 4. Ld. DR submits that the same assessee in earlier occasion, in the month of January, 2003 during stock verification, found shortage of inputs. He submits that the respondent is a habitual offender and, therefore, penalty of equal amount of duty is imposable. 5. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that there is no evidence of cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that if the assessee deposited the duty within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Adjudication Order, penalty would be reduced to 25% of duty. In the present case, I find that the Original Authority imposed penalty of equal amount of duty even the assessee deposited the duty before issue of show cause notice. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X