9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sekharan: This is a departmental appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal No: RK/166/Aur/2003 dated 28/11/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur. In the impugned order the appellate authority has upheld the confirmation of duty demand and interest and also the redemption fine imposed by the lower adjudicating authority. He has reduced the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing duty of Rs. 34,596/- and also proposing to invoke penal proceedings. The respondent on 01/06/1998 itself paid the duty demanded of Rs. 34,596/-. The respondent submitted that the mistake has occurred in the packing section of the respondent's factory and was due to the change of staff due to change in shift. 2.2. The notice was adjudicated upon vide order dated 20/08/1999 wherein the adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two being similar. Since the respondent had discharged the duty liability before the issue of the show cause notice, he imposed a lower amount of penalty in view of the apex court's judgment in the case of Hindustan Motors vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2003 (153) ELT A304 (SC). The department is in appeal against the impugned order. 3. The only ground in the appeal is that the appellate Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the penalty from Rs. 34,596/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Since for imposition of penalty both under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC has been proposed, it is not necessary that equivalent penalty has to be imposed. Mandatory penalty is imposable only in the case involving fraud, collusion, suppression, willful misstatement of facts or contravention of the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
