9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of lower adjudicating authority and rejected their appeal except modifying the penalty from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-imposed on the company secretary of the company. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants have come in appeal and have stated that since the duty has been paid before issue of show cause notice, no penalty under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1944 are not imposable. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the Secretary of the company is in-charge of the administrative affairs of the company and he does not look after day-to-day affairs of the company about Central Excise matters and, therefore, no penalty under Section 209A can be imposed. Ld. Advocate also submitted that even if it is held that penalty is imposable, it cannot be equivalent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a vide Order No. A-721/KOL/2002, dated 27-6-2002 in the case of Indian Oil Blending Ltd. v. CCE Kolkata-I wherein the duty involved was Rs. 44,36,159/- and penalty was reduced to Rs. 4 lakhs imposed under Section 11AC by following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd v CCE, New Delhi (supra). 4. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue, ld. SDR filed written submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een paid before issue of show cause notice. 5. We have carefully gone through various citations referred to by the ld. Counsel as well as ld. SDR and we find that this Bench in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, 2003 (156) E.L.T. 995 (Tri. - Chennai) and also in the matter of G.K. Steels (CBE) Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, 2002 (53) RLT 1065 (T) has been consistently holding that interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
