TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. [Order]. In both the appeals, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned orders-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fine and the penalty as imposed on them by the adjudicating authority. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. On visiting the factory premises of the respondent No. 1 some finished goods were found lying excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained that order. But reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 5,000/- and penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. 3. The learned JDR has contended that penalty could not be reduced to Rs. 2,000/- as under Rule 25 of the Rules the penalty has to be minimum of Rs. 10,000/- which the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed. The redemption fine also according to the learned JDR could not be reduced. 4. The responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the unaccounted goods whichever is greater. In both the cases, the value of the seized goods was only Rs. 63,000/- and Rs. 74,761/- respectively and the duty involved would not in any manner exceed Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the Commissioner (Appeals) has exercised his discretion and reduced the penalty in both the cases. The di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
