TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have questioned their duty liability as well as imposition of penalty of equal amount on them. Shri Jasbir Singh, who has been authorised to appear vide letter dated 13-10-2003, has stated that there was no shortage of the goods and as such neither duty nor penalty could be confirmed against the appellants. 2. I have gone through the record and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the duty has been rightly confirmed against the appellants. 3. Regarding imposition of penalty of equal amount of the duty i.e. Rs. 62,700/- under Rule 173Q, the sole plea taken by the appellants is that duty was deposited before issuance of show cause notice and as such no penalty could be imposed. They have referred to the ratio of law laid down in Siddaganga Cements P. Ltd. v. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f their own, without any checking by the Central Excise Officers, then it could be said that the deposit of the duty by them was voluntary. But not in the present circumstances detailed above. Therefore, the ratio of law laid down in the above said case is not attracted to the facts of the case. The penalty in my view has been rightly imposed on the appellants. However, keeping in view of the cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
