2010 (5) TMI 303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant. ORDER R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President - Heard ld. DR for the appellants. None present for the respondent. 2. The present appeal arises from order dated 29-12-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Kanpur. 3. The only ground on which the impugned order is sought to be challenged is that the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent erred in reducing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... apital goods, wrongly or without taking reasonable steps to ensure that appropriate duty on the said inputs or capital goods has been paid as indicated in the documents accompanying the inputs or capital goods specified in rule 7, or contravenes any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any inputs or capital goods, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and such person, shal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he minimum amount of the penalty. The same is left to the discretion of the authority. The expression "not exceeding" does not relate to the minimum amount of penalty but to the maximum amount of penalty, which could be imposed. Being so, there is no substance in the challenge to the impugned order by the appellants. 9. As no other ground is canvassed to challenge the impugned order, the appeal f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X