TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (J) (Oral)]. This appeal arises from Order-in-Original No.16/2002 BNG-II, dated 9-8-2002. In the impugned order the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings against the appellant demanding duty of Rs. 21,20,996/-. However, he has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- in terms of Rule 173Q for not maintaining the records. There was a separate penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- on Shrusthi Pharmac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollateral charge brought against the appellant under Rule 209A that they had abetted M/s. Eros Pharma (P) Ltd. in evading duty does not sustain. The Commissioner has proceeded on a different footing and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- on the appellant company and Rs. 50,000/- on the Director respectively, which was not in terms of the Show Cause Notice. The Commissioner cannot raise a fresh gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside by allowing the appeals. 2. Ld. Counsel submits that the Commissioner in the impugned order in sub-para 2 of internal page 17 of his order has given a finding that appellants had failed to maintain the required records showing the details of quantity of capsules and packing materials received, the quantity of blister packed capsules returned, etc. Therefore, he imposed penalty in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by him is to impose penalty for non-keeping of records. As rightly pointed out by the ld. Counsel that Rule 226 provides for imposing penalty of Rs. 2,000/- for non-maintenance of records. In the present case, non-maintenance of records has not resulted in evasion of duty neither such non-maintenance of records has been done with an intention to evade duty. For imposing penalty under Rule 173 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
