9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.Ts. of final product than the recorded balance in the statutory books of accounts. The various records maintained by the appellants (statutory as well as private) were taken into possession by the Central Excise Officers. Shri Ratan Lal Agarwal, partner of the appellant company, in his statement given before the Officers admitted the shortages and the excesses as also the fact that there were clearances by their Company without payment of duty. Ho also tendered a cheque of Rs. 2.5 lakh on 17-6-98 towards the alleged shortages and clearances without payment of duty. Based upon the above facts, proceedings were initiated against the appellants proposing to confirm the demand of duty of Rs. 1,77,207.00 as the duty not paid in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an equivalent amount was imposed upon the appellants along with the confirmation of interest under the provisions of Section 11AC. Appeal against the above Order did not succeed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 3. I have heard Shri P.M. Sen, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri A.K. Mondal, learned JDR for the Revenue. 4. As regards the confirmation of demand of duty in respect of the goods allegedly cleared without payment of duty based upon the entries made in the records recovered from the appellants' factory, it is seen that the appellants have only submitted that the said note-book was recovered from the gateman and did not belong to them. In my view, the said stand of the appellant co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, learned Consultant has, however, prayed for reduction in penalty and has relied upon the Tribunal's decisions in the case of Escorts JCP Ltd. v. Commissioner reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (Tribunal) and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Mauria Udyog Ltd. reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 248 (Tribunal), in support of his contention that Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 only provides the maximum limit of penalty and it is not mandatory that the penalty should be equal to the duty amount. By applying the ratio of the said decisions to the facts of the present case, I reduce the total quantum of personal penalty of Rs. 60,779.00 (Rupees sixty thousand seven hundred seventy nine) to a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 (Rupee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
