2003 (9) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant. Shri D.N. Chaudhary, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by M/s. U.P. State Irrigation Workshop Division against Order-in-Original No. 5/2003, dated 28-2-2003 by which the Commissioner has demanded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,72,691/- and imposed equivalent amount of penalty. 2. Shri Anil Mittal, lear....

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 Commissioner under the impugned Order has again imposed penalty equivalent to the amount of duty which in view of the Tribunal's Order is not possible as the duty has also been confirmed for the period prior to insertion of Section 11AC in the Central Excise Act. He finally mentioned that the penalty imposed is on the higher side considering the fact that the workshop belongs to the State....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is not being contested the same is upheld. We agree with the learned SDR that the penalty is imposable on the Appellants under Rule 173Q(1) read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the goods manufactured by the Appellants have been cleared without informing the Central Excise department and without payment of duty. The Tribunal in its earlier Order dated 14-9-2001, had observed that....