2008 (6) TMI 531

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 per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - The respondent is not represented in spite of notice for today's hearing. The Department is represented by the DR. Therefore, we are proceeding to decide the appeal on merits. 2. This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 5-6-2004 by which the penalty amount of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e party, the Commissioner (Appeals) taking into account that the entire duty involved along with interest stands paid, reduced the penalty to Rs. 75,000/-. He has relied on various precedent judgments including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 1978 (2) E.L.T. J159 (S.C.), to reduce the penalty. 4. Learned DR submits that the Rule 96 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 199, has held that penalty should be commensurate with the gain, if any, made by the party. The above decision has been arrived at by following the ratio of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2005 (191) E.L.T. 86. 6. In the present case, admittedly, there was delay in....