TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bench)]. - Both the appeals are arising out of a common order and, therefore, both are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of steel casting classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 3-8-04, the Central Excise officers visited the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalties on the respondents. Hence, the Revenue filed these appeals. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the show cause notice that Shri Chetan Bhatia, director of the respondent s company, respondent No. 2 herein, in his statement dated 3-8-04 admitted the shortage and stated that inputs have been removed from the factory premises without issue of centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the learned advocate that the respondents deposited the duty before issue of show cause notice and therefore, penalty should be 25% of duty. 4. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Malbro Appliances Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.)] held that second proviso to Section 11AC(1) of Central Excise Act providing for penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority. However, the penalty on the respondent No. 2 is excessive and accordingly, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). 6. In view of the above, order of Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. Adjudication order is modified in as far as penalties on Respondents No. 1 and 2 are reduced to Rs. 78,000.00 (Rupees Seventy-eight thousand only) and Rs. 20, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
