TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urthy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 692/2001-C.E., dt. 18-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The issue relates of imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the party had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch before the issue of the show cause notice. It was contended by them that removals were not clandestine, as they have removed under the cover of delivery challans. There was no suppression, as the mistake has happened in the course of transaction. These pleas were rejected by the authorities below. Hence this appeal. 3. It was contended by the Counsel on behalf of the party that the pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances of the case. He said that the decision of BPL Sanyo Utilities & Appliances Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case since that case relates to Modvat credit wrongly taken and the same has been reversed before issue of show cause notice. He said that similarly the decision of R.S. Graphics referred to above and relied upon by the Counsel is not relevant to the facts of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner has observed that since the party has paid the duty, the same was appropriated towards the duty demand. 6. In the case of Siemens Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad reported in 1999 (34) RLT 831 (CEGAT), the Tribunal has held that penalty is not imposable when the assessee has taken corrective steps before issue of show cause notice. Similarly in the case of Sub Zero Icecream Pvt Ltd. (supra)....