2007 (4) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nod Kr. Agarwal, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that duty amount of Rs. 6,17,984/- have been deposited. Therefore, penalty of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs imposed by the order of Adjudication mechanically confirmed by the appellate order calls for intervention of the Hon'ble Tribunal. According to him the charge was not brought to the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erest but levy of penalty was justified. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. The question of levy of penalty was not in dispute. The clause in terms of which penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was leviable was not made known to the Appellant. Even though the notice did not state specific period or charge for penalty, through a specific clause, the residuary claus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cial discipline as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Food Products cited (Supra), the appellant cannot be dealt to the detriment of justice without bringing home  to the charges at the earliest stage for defence. Further, to levy penalty, even there is provision of law in the statute of book that does not ipso facto empower the authorities to impose....