9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- (Rs. Twenty five Thousand). His observations in support of the said reduction in penalty may be noted "It is observed that the appellant had deposited outstanding amount of duty along with interest even before adjudication. Regarding imposition of penalty, by now it is established legal position that wherever penalty equivalent to amount involved has been prescribed, it is the maximum limit. It is not mandatory and the Adjudicating Authority has the discretion to impose lesser penalty, keeping in view the circumstances of the case. Further, the issue already stand decided in favour of the appellant vide Order-in-Appeal No. 147/CE/APPL/LDH-II/04 dated 27-2-2004 in the case of M/s. K.C. Alloys & Steel Castings & vide Order-in-Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is admitted and pending for decision. 6. That, the Civil Appeal No. D9351 of 2001 filed by CCE, New Delhi against CECAT Order No. 20/2001A, dated 28-2-2001 reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 248 (Tri. -Delhi) Commissioner v. Maurya Udyog Ltd., is admitted by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein Appellate Tribunal in its order in question had relied upon the decision in case of M/s. Escort JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi holding that limit fixed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the maximum limit and authority have discretion to impose lesser penalty. 7. That, in a similar case of Ambuja Synthetic Mills Ltd. v. UOI, 2002 (50) RLT 133 (Guj.), the department has not accepted the decision of Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Ludhiana, to file an appeal before the CESTAT, New Delhi in the prescribed proforma on our be half and respectfully, praying thereunder that the Hon'ble Tribunal may set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 165/CE/Appl/Ldh/2005, dated 23-3-2005 imposing the proposed penalty or any other order may be passed as deemed fit, keeping in view the submissions made in the aforementioned grounds of appeal." 3. A perusal of the above grounds makes clear that there is difference of judicial opinion as to whether penalty is to be equal to duty short paid. In such a situation, the Commissioner could not be faulted for reducing penalty in a deserving case. No interfere is called for. The impugned order is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
