9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -SM - Final Order No. 84/2007-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 3-1-2007 - [Order per] - Heard both the sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the imposition of penalty of Rs.22,313/-. The appellants are not challenging the demand of duty as confirmed by the Adjudicating authority. The appellants are engaged in the processing of man made fabrics. The Central Excise officers visited the appellant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty was paid prior to the issuance of show cause notice, it is not a case of pre-deposit of penalty. He referred to case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. [2003 (161) E.L.T. 285] against which the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. A-53. The appellant also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Sai Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (203) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rashtriya ispat, the facts are different. In that case, the assessee was under the bona fide impression that they are entitled for the benefit of notification and were clearing the goods without payment of duty. When the Revenue pointed out that they are not entitled for the benefit of notification, the assessee paid the duty and starting clearing the goods on payment of duty. In this situati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. In the present case, as the goods were cleared without payment of duty and also not entered in the RGI register, which is a fact admitted by the appellant, I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby equal amount of penalty is imposed on the appellants. The appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 3-1-2007) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
