TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Murthy, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - This appeal arises from Order-in-Original No.16/2002 BNG-II, dated 9-8-2002. In the impugned order the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings against the appellant demanding duty of Rs. 21,20,996/-. However, he has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- in terms of Rule 173Q for not maintaining the records. There was a se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Eros Pharma (P) Ltd. is not sustainable. Therefore, the collateral charge brought against the appellant under Rule 209A that they had abetted M/s. Eros Pharma (P) Ltd. in evading duty does not sustain. The Commissioner has proceeded on a different footing and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- on the appellant company and Rs. 50,000/- on the Director respectively, which was not in terms of the Sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stainable. The penalties are not sustainable and they are set aside by allowing the appeals. 2. Ld. Counsel submits that the Commissioner in the impugned order in sub-para 2 of internal page 17 of his order has given a finding that appellants had failed to maintain the required records showing the details of quantity of capsules and packing materials received, the quantity of blister packed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against the appellant for confirming duty amount. The only ground raised by him is to impose penalty for non-keeping of records. As rightly pointed out by the ld. Counsel that Rule 226 provides for imposing penalty of Rs. 2,000/- for non-maintenance of records. In the present case, non-maintenance of records has not resulted in evasion of duty neither such non-maintenance of records has been done....