2004 (8) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder-in-Appeal No. 618-619/2003, dated 30-9-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty of Rs. 32 lakhs imposed on M/s. Karan Processors to Rs. 16 lakhs. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents. In fact notice issued to them for hearing had been received back from the postal authorities. We also observe that earlier also whenever the matters .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Excise Rules penalty equal to an amount of duty outstanding from assessee or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is greater is to be imposed; that thus the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority was proper and as per the Central Excise Rules; that there is no discretion provided for in the Central Excise Rules for imposition of penalty less than the duty involved. He relied upon the decision of the All .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of the appeal that the penalty has to be levied equal to the amount of duty outstanding from the assessee. We observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [1998 (99) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.)] wherein Section 7(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X