9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.4.04. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order of the lower authorities imposing a penalty of Rs. 44,495/- on the respondents. 2. In this case, the Central Excise Officers intercepted the truck containing iron and steel products without documents. The driver of the truck confirmed that there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ours on the same date by the Central Excise Officers. The time taken in between i.e. around 900. Hours is attributed by the ld. Counsel for the appellants for loading the heavy items of iron and steel products in their factory premises 3. Ld. JDR, Shri Y.S. Loni for the Revenue reiterates the observations Order-in-Original. He also points out that the road Challan did not accompany the truck at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave suffered. He, further, stated that after this experience, they have obtained necessary permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and they are continuing with this practice even now. 5. I have heard both sides and examined the case records. The respondents have clarified and admitted that there has been a technical lapse considering the nature of the goods and the need for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nical lapse on their part which have to be addressed here. Accordingly, I reduce the penalty of Rs.44495/- which is imposed in Order-in-Original to Rs. 10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). 6. In so far as redemption fine of Rs. 75000/- imposed in the Order-in-Original, I do not find any reason to change the quantum of redemption fine, in view of any findings. 7. The appeal filed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
