9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e three appeals involve a question with regard to waiver of penalty amount. 2. The officers of the Central Excise have visited the premises of the appellants on 4-2-1999 and found shortage of certain finished goods and as well as inputs. They have worked out and confirmed the Central Excise duty to the tune of ₹ 80,300/- towards finished goods and on inputs ₹ 28,625/-, aggregating i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n upheld confirmation of duty but set aside the interest. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals are filed by the three appellants. 3. The main contention of the appellants is that the confirmed duty has already been paid on the same day when the offence was detected and much prior to the issue of the Show-Cause-Notice as such imposition of penalties on them is not justified. In this context they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id on the day of detection. 4. The ld. DR relied upon the Sub-Para 5 of Para 4 in the case of CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tr.-LB) wherein it is observed that the disputed duty has been paid by the party even before issue of the Show-Cause-Notice and this would show that there is no question of any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew also confirmed by the Supreme Court. 6. The ld. DR Shri Dewalwar points out that the decisions referred to above by the Tribunal including one of Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. did not involve the issue of clandestine removal shortage of goods, as such the ratio held therein cannot be made applicable to present case. While appreciating the said contention, I observe that the ratio laid down in al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pting the contention of the ld. DR. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) who had set aside the interest amount ought to have set aside penalty also. This is a fit case where the penalty is to be waived on all the appellants. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
