2007 (10) TMI 463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... None, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is a Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Nos. 156-158/2006 (Ahd-I), dated 31-7-06,  seeking enhancement of penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 3,75,000/-. The Cross-Objection No. E/CO/2/07 is connected to this appeal. 2. None appeared for the respondent. Heard the learned DR. 3. The relevant facts, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rpretation reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. 4. The learned DR seeks to enhance the penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 3,75,000/- as imposed by the original authority. For this purpose, he reiterates findings of the original authority. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned DR and also perused the records. This is not a case of clandestine removal. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I do notice that the appellants were bona fidely under the mis-apprehension that the goods which were exempted, their value need not be added while eligibility criteria for deciding the availability of exemption notification to SSI unit was concerned. In fact, the departmental officers ought to have been vigilant on cases specific in of SSI units. Looking to the size of plant and machinery as such....