2005 (10) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - Appellants are manufacturers of Motor Vehicles. For clearance of such vehicles on budget day 29-2-2000 they had sought & obtained the necessary permissions and effected clearances of vehicles as per the procedure prescribed. Subsequently it was noticed that vide notification 7/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 they were required to pay certain amounts in excess of the duties al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al Excise Rules. They discharged notice for penalty under Rule 25 or 27 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 as proposed in the notice. The order of interest at appropriate rate under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act 1944 was also ordered. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the order impugned upheld the order and rejected the appeal. Hence the appeal is before us. 2. After hearing both sides & co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... harged the same on their own. The scheme of things of removals on the budget day envisages certain duties to be paid on the clearances. We therefore cannot accept that there was a deliberate attempt to pay less duty than what was due on the goods removed on 29-2-2000. The penalty under Rule 173Q therefore, on merits also cannot be upheld in the facts, of this case. The penalty is therefore require .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X