TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Q, the Revenue had not filed any appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner in the impugned order accepted the assessee's plea that there was no intention to evade payment of duty and the duty had been paid on 16-5-2001 much before the date of issue of show cause notice dt. 25-5-2001. While setting aside the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, and interest claimed under Section 11AB of the Act, he followed the Tribunal's ruling rendered in the case of Amristar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 437 (T). However, inadvertently, he noted that the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q was only a nominal penalty and hence he took a lenient view to reduce the same to Rs. 65,000/-. The Revenue in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings. 4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the ld. Commissioner had followed the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Amristar Crown Caps (P) Ltd., which has been followed by this Bench also and he filed a copy of Final Order No. 1169/2002, dt. 18-10-2002 rendered in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Sundaram Industries wherein the Tribunal has up held the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order to set aside the penalty under situation where the duty has been paid even before the issue of show cause notice. He contents that the judgment of Amristar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. (supra) has been rendered after due consideration of several other judgments and that this view has been followed in large number of cases by all benches. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Southern Regional Bench in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Sundaram Industries (supra). In view of this position, I do not find any merit in the Revenue appeal and the same is rejected. 6. Inasfar as the cross appeal is concerned, there is merit in their case. The order-in-original clearly dropped penal proceedings initiated under the other provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, the Commissioner was under a mistaken belief that there was penalty imposed also under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Therefore, there was no question of reducing the same. The error is apparent on record and therefore the contention of the assessee in the cross appeal is accepted and the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order confirming the penalty of Rs. 65,000/- under Rule 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
