2002 (4) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... K.A. Mishra, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The appellants are manufactures of iron and steel products. They were discharging excise duty liability under compounded levy scheme as provided under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The impugned order has upheld imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant. The provision of law r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evade payment of duty. The discrepancies can only be the result of accounting error and not intent to evade duty. In such a case, according to the Counsel, maximum penalty imposable would be Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules. 4. We have heard learned SDR who submits that the ingredient of evasion of duty is not relevant in respect of removal of goods in contravention o....