2003 (9) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri J. Shankaraman, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - The Revenue is aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in setting aside the imposition of penalty. However, he has confirmed an appropriate interest, which is required to be paid by the appellants. The findings recorded in para-3 of the impugned order are extracted belo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gard penalty, I find that no fraud or suppression of facts is involved in this case. The appellant rectified the mistake even before the issue of SCN. Hence the penalty is set aside. Reliance placed on Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. case reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 77 (Tri.). However, they have to pay the appropriate interest." 2. Ld. DR Shri C. Mani, submits that the appellants have comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elied on the Hon'ble High Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Trichy v. CEGAT, Chennai, reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 536. He submits that even in the case of Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 437, held that if the amounts are paid before the investigation or before the issue of show cause notice, in such circumstances, no penalty is leviable. ....