2003 (6) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  In both the appeals, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty under Rule 173Q as imposed by the adjudicating authority on the respondents. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he time of receipt of the goods. For this lapse, penalty under Rule 173Q was imposed on the respondents while the duty demand was dropped by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside that penalty through the impugned order. 3. The learned Counsel has contended that for a small lapse no penalty could be imposed as there was no revenue loss. The Counsel has placed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the respondents did not commit breach of the provisions of erstwhile Rules 57S(3), 57T(6) and 57F(6)(II) of the Central Excise Rules. 6. The argument of the learned Counsel that there was also no intention on the part of the respondents to evade duty does not warrant non-imposition of the penalty on them, when they had violated the provisions of the above said Rules. They were require....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Foods Ltd. (supra), is of no help to the respondents as in that case, the inputs sent to the job worker under Rule 57F(4) were received back after processing after the expiry of 60 days prescribed for return and in that context, the Tribunal took the view that Rule 57F being self contained, action could only be taken in terms of special provisions of Rule 57F, and general provisions of Rule 57-I ....