2008 (8) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Amit Awasthi, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order (for the Bench)].  - Both the appeals are arising out of a common order and, therefore, both are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of steel casting classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2002, respondent No. 2 herein. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties on the respondents. Hence, the Revenue filed these appeals. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the show cause notice that Shri Chetan Bhatia, director of the respondent's company, respondent No. 2 herein, in his statement dated 3-8-04 admitted the shortage and stated t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned advocate is without any substance. However, I agree with the submission of the learned advocate that the respondents deposited the duty before issue of show cause notice and therefore, penalty should be 25% of duty. 4. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Malbro Appliances Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.)] hel....