2002 (12) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med by Commissioner (Appeals). The penalty was arrived at since the appellants had brought in certain goods for repairs/re-conditioning under the provisions of Rule 173H, but had not removed the same within a period of six months as provided. The grounds taken in appeal are : - (a)      The goods damaged in transit were returned to the factory for rectification of defec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty. No penalty was called for. They relied on the case law reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 346 (Tri.). This case law lays down that no limit of six months has been prescribed under the Rule. Therefore, the penalty imposed of Rs. 1,000/- reading it with Rule 210 was not called for. (e)       They have also stated that they were not provided with the copy of the Trad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder the provisions of that Rule, since there is a breach of Rule 173H inasmuch as the time limit prescribed by the Collector by the Trade Notice, has been violated, the penalty is justified. (b)      I find that for the breach of the rules, the penalty is justified under Rule 210 when no other penalty was provided in the Rules in the Act. (c)    ....