2002 (2) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s have been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 165 to 174/98 (CBE), dated 12-11-98 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy against the reduction of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the C.E. Act, 1944 to Rs. 75,000/- in the case of M/s. Kannu Pipes and to Rs. 2 lakhs in the case of M/s. Sree Vishnu Pipes. 2. Shri C. Mani, learned DR has perused the photo copy of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m 28-9-96 and therefore, penalty under this Section could have been imposed only after 28-9-96. Further, the department has still benefited by reducing the penalty since the Commissioner (Appeals) could have restricted the imposition of penalty from 1-10-1996. The Commissioner (Appeals) has cited a number of judgments in his order regarding imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The Hon'ble Ape .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X