TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Anr.) - no case to interfere with the impugned order of the Government of India, passed in revision application as prayed by the petitioner is made out - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No. 4281 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2014 - P K Jaiswal D K Paliwal, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri S Neema , Ld. Counsel For the Respondent: Shri Prasana Prasad, Ld. Counsel JUDGEMENT They are heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The petitioner is praying for the following relief: (i) To issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order completely and permanently prohibiting the respondents, their servants and agents from taking any ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 dated 26.06.2001. The Adjudicating Authority decided the case and confirmed the demand of ₹ 4 ,22,111 /- and imposed the equal penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, petitioner filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who decided the same in favour of petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the respondent - department has filed a revision application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government. 6. The Central Government by order dated 7.6.2012, disposed of the revision application in above terms. Government notes that the applicant cleared the goods without payment of duty under Notification no.43/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PP bags, duty free under Notification No.43/2001- CE( NT) was subjected to condition that the same will be used in export of final export products. Since PP bags procured duty free as packing material were not exported the conditions of said notification stand violated. Hence, the duty is rightly demanded along with interest by the original authority. Government therefore, sets aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and restores the impugned Order-in-Original. As regard penalty Government, however, notes that penalty imposed under rule 25 for violation of statutory provisions as stated above, appears harsh. Government therefore, keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case reduces, the penalty to ₹ 40,000 /- ( Rs. Forty thousand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
