1997 (4) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a penalty was not imposable for any technical or venial breach. 3. Further, a penalty was imposable only in cases where the mala fide intention of the person was established and it was not imposable unless the Department is able to sustain its demand notice which was under challenge and in this respect, he would like to cite the judgments in the cases of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) and Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Ltd. reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.). 4. Learned DR drew attention to the impugned order-in-appeal and in particular to para 13 thereof. He read it out to show that the learned Collector has recorded the reasons for imposing penalty in this paragraph and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e that he was required to act in the manner provided under Rule 57G(4) but has not done so. 9. Learned Counsel stated, in reply, that these judgments also emphasise that the discretion of the authority should be exercised judicially on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. 10. I have considered the above submissions. I observe that it is incorrect to say that the Collector has not passed a speaking order on the point. The Collector has given reasons for retaining penalty as rightly pointed out by the learned DR and relevant para 13 reads as follows :- "Coming to the penalty, the appellant's plea is that the credit was taken on the basis of the original documents and that these were lost/misplaced after they were ch....