TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the short question arising for consideration is whether the assessable value of the goods cleared by the assessee from their up-country depots (Delhi, Calcutta and Pune) during the period October 1997 to February 2000 should be determined by includ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as accepted by the assessee. 2. In the present case, we have to simply follow our earlier decision and, accordingly, the demand of duty raised on the assessee by the lower authorities for the period October 1997 to February 2000 is upheld. 3. There is a penalty also on the assessee as per the impugned order, which is 50% of the duty demanded from them. This penalty is under Rule 17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute in this case was comprised within that period of confusion. It is further pointed out by learned counsel that the differential duty demanded in this case was paid after the Order-in-Original was passed. It is prayed that this aspect, which is indicative of the keenness of the assessee to pay duty, should be taken into account while considering their challenge against the penalty. It is also po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no question of allegations such as suppression. The penalty in this case is under Rule 173Q. The only point to be examined is whether such a penalty is liable to be imposed on the assessee on the facts of this case and, if so, to what extent. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that such a high penalty as imposed by the lower authorities is not ....