TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original. 2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the search of the factory premises was not taken by the officers of the Central Excise in accordance with provisions of Rules 198 to 208 as they neither prepared Panchnama nor associated any witness. He has further submitted that the statement of the proprietor of the firm could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On the other hand ld. DR, has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. He has also referred to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. UOI reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 wherein the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q had been considered. 5. I have heard both sides and have gone through the record. So far as the contention of the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the duty of Rs. 4,56,912/- and deposited the same also. It is only for the first time in reply to the SCN, he alleged that he was in a state of confusion, when he had made the confessional statement, but the same, in my view, has been rightly brushed aside being after thought, by the authorities below. 6. It is well settled that admission made by the maker can be accepted as a substantial p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, the contention of the Counsel, in my view, cannot be subscribed as it would only render the mandatory provisions of this Section nugatory, in-effective. The Apex Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagar case (supra) has dealt with the provisions of this Section and Rule 173Q and observed that penalty is imposable under these provisions. Therefore, I must show m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants. 8. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that appellants had deposited the duty after the raid, the penalty amount deserves to be reduced. The penalty under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC imposed equal to the amount of duty, is, therefore, reduced to Rs. one lakh. Except for modification in the penalty amount, the impugned order is uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
