TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this appeal the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reduced the duty and set aside the penalty. 2. The learned SDR has contended that the Director of the respondents' company, in his statement had conceded the non-accountal of excess goods as well as shortage of the raw material and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presumed that the respondents might have evaded the duty if there had been no checking in the factory. He has also contended that since there was no apportionment of the penalty amount under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, the entire penalty has been rightly set aside. 4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows that die Director of the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the duty amount cannot be sustained. 5. Similarly, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding setting aside of the penalty on the ground that the duty was deposited before the issuance of the show cause notice and that there was no apportionment of the penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, also cannot be sust....