2004 (8) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant. Shri L. Narasimha 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 main....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder that the demand of duty on M/s. 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 respective....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants have strong force and are sustainable. 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 re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner has dropped the proceedings 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 su....