2008 (2) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... jay Saxena, SDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice S.N. Jha, President]. - This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 6-8-2001 setting aside the adjudication order of the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise dated 30-3-2001. By the said adjudication order, the respondent was held liable to excise duty of Rs. 1,30,630/-. Penalty of Rs. 60,000/- under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and further penalty of Rs. 1,30,630/- equal to excise duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was also imposed on the respondent. Interest at the rate of 24% in terms of Section 11AB of the Act was also awarded. Besides, penalty of Rs. 3000/- was also impos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ried on in the premises amounted to manufacture, a sum of Rs. 1,38,316/- was paid towards excise duty on past clearances and that in future, all clearance would be made from factory on payment of duty after taking registration and following the procedure as required under the law. The adjudication order demanding central excise duty in the circumstances does not appear to be erroneous. 4. The Commissioner in the impugned order however held that the respondent does not have any machinery or mechanism and electricity available in the premises and they cannot be said to be carrying on any manufacturing activity. They are simply traders buying goods from one and selling them to the other for profit, and accordingly set aside the adjudicatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent to evade excise duty. They seem to have been under the impression that the mere act of assembling goods did not amount to manufacture and therefore did not pay duty earlier, when they realized the implications of the activities, they paid the entire duty on past clearances. We are satisfied that the non-payment of duty at the relevant time was bona fide and therefore the respondent may not be saddled with the liability of penalty. We accordingly in the facts of the case set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. 7. As regards Pankaj Choksi, he was one of the appellants before the Commissioner and the order setting aside the adjudication order was passed also at his instance. In this appeal, however, he has not been made a c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X