9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri B.K. Choubey, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - Appeal No. E/3434/2000-Mum is filed by M/s. Suresh Engineering Works against Order-in-Appeal No. SDK (1300) 152/M.I/2000, dated 25-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai. Appeal No. E/3329/2000-Mum is filed by the Revenue against the same order. The facts being the same, both appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the assessees were operating under this facility, it appears that they failed to give the required intimation to the Department. Show cause notice was issued alleging delayed payments for the months of September and October, 1999, demanding interest of Rs. 205/- and seeking imposition of penalty of Rs. 21,000/-. Annexure A showed the calculation of short payment. Annexure B contained the allegat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned provisions to reduce the penalty. Prayer is made to reinstate the quantum of penalty of Rs. 21,000/-. In the appeal from the assessees it was claimed that due to peculiar conditions the assessees were unable to fulfil their obligation. It is claimed that the interest stood paid even prior to the issue of show cause notice. Placing reliance on the same judgment of the Supreme Court which led t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under the same Rule namely 173GG which could not apply to the assessees in view of lack of the notice for knowledge thereof. Although the assessees do not make this plea, having noticed the situation, we cannot help but take appropriate action.
7. In the result, the appeal from M/s. Suresh Engineering Works is allowed and the appeal from the Revenue is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
