9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order]. - Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that duty amount of Rs. 6,17,984/- have been deposited. Therefore, penalty of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs imposed by the order of Adjudication mechanically confirmed by the appellate order calls for intervention of the Hon'ble Tribunal. According to him the charge was not brought to the appellant for its defence in the course of show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. The question of levy of penalty was not in dispute. The clause in terms of which penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was leviable was not made known to the Appellant. Even though the notice did not state specific period or charge for penalty, through a specific clause, the residuary clause takes care of the imposition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Food Products cited (Supra), the appellant cannot be dealt to the detriment of justice without bringing home to the charges at the earliest stage for defence. Further, to levy penalty, even there is provision of law in the statute of book that does not ipso facto empower the authorities to impose without judging totality of the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
