9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , nobody was present for the respondents. The Revenue, the appellant, was represented by Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR. Since the matter relates to the year 2004, we have gone through the appeal papers with the help of the learned SDR to understand the issue involved and to decide the appeal, if possible. 2. The respondents are doing the business of financing and leasing. The respondents had sold few it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chinery is liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and the respondents are liable to pay the amount of credit taken and also to pay penalty under various Central Excise Rules for not having paid such amount. The show-cause notice issued in this regard was adjudicated resulting in confirmation of duty amounting to Rs.13,66,720/-, confiscation of the machinery with an opti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould have imposed redemption fine on the basis of this value and not on the basis of value of Rs.21,45,000/- shown in the Panchanama. The Revenue also pleads that the redemption fine of Rs.10 lakhs in lieu of confiscation imposed by the adjudicating authority was reasonable and the relief given by the Commissioner (Appeals) is excessive. 4. In the matter of penalty, Revenue does not agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was owned by them. They have not committed any illegal activity. Revenue loss that arose to the department was incidental and not intentional. Their main contention before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that they had no intention to cause any loss of revenue to the Government and, therefore, a lenient approach should be taken in the matter and they should be spared from excessive fine and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
