2000 (8) TMI 451

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... application. 2. We have heard Shri Arun Mehta Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.M. Patwari for the Revenue. 3. Rule 96ZI of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 enables the Government to prescribe by Notification compounded rates of duty for machine made Embroidery. The scheme takes into account, the number of machines used and the number of shifts per day in which the machines are run. A shift has been defined in the rule as a period not exceeding 8 hours. The appellant firm M/s. Perfect Embroidery were operating under this Rule. During the period 1-5-1997 to 17-11-1997 their production was round the clock and in terms of the definition they were operating in three shifts. However, they discharged the burden of duty as if t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....parte order. 4. Shri Arun Mehta claimed that the memorandum, to appear before the Commissioner was not received by the appellants and therefore the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner was in violation of the principles of natural justice. As regards the penalty he had two arguments. The first was that the assessees having themselves understood and accepted the short levy, had voluntarily made the duty short levied and therefore in terms of the several judgments of the Tribunal no penalty was leviable. The second claim was that Rule 96ZL prescribed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- only. Rule 210 also prescribes the maximum penalty of Rs. 1000/-. It is his further submission that whereas the provisions of Rule 209A were not invoked at all....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In this Judgment the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed, on the observation that when the department pointed out the duty liability the appellant paid the duty. While the logic in this order may apply, we find that the appellants cannot be exonerated entirely. From 18-11-1997, they had realised that their duty payment should be on the basis of three shifts and not of two shifts and yet they did not take any action to make good the earlier shortage of duty. They did so only after the fact came to the department's notice . In these circumstances, the benefit of this Judgment cannot be claimed although a reduction in the quantum would be warranted. 10. As regards the penalty imposed on the partner Shri Sandeep Mehra, we find that ....