2001 (8) TMI 1133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. -  M/s. New Allenberry Works have filed this appeal challenging the order of the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise confirming demand of Rs. 1,57,200.30 and imposing penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er shortage was pointed out by the Department, they had made the same good. Therefore, there was no question of confirmation of demand. The ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the above submissions, the penalty imposed on the appellants was out of all proportion and harsh. They submitted that there was no intention to evade payment of duty and that on the date of actual clearance of goods, there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tually been deposited by them. He, therefore, submits that the duty has correctly been confirmed. 5. Regarding imposition of penalty, ld. DR submits that the penalty has been imposed for contravention of the Rules. He submits that according to the duty paying documents, the position is amply clear that the goods have been cleared when there was not sufficient balance in the PLA. He, theref....