2010 (1) TMI 1083

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 49/CE/CHD/2008 dated 22-1-08. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent, a manufacturer of stainless steel billets, flats falling under Chapter 72, were required to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- BED plus Rs. 13,009/- Education C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pressed by the Department and the provisions of Rule 25 or Section 11AC could not be invoked and accordingly, the penalty was totally set aside and the appeal was allowed. 4. Learned SDR submits that inasmuch as the assessee has not paid the duty on or before 5-12-2004, the clearances were deemed to be non-duty paid clearances and therefore, penalty under Rule 25 is imposable. The Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r (Appeals), they deposited the penalty also. Commissioner (Appeals) taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly set aside the penalty and the same should not be interfered with. 5.2 Learned Advocate relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saurashtra Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot [2008 (225) E.L.T. 395 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]; the decision in the case of Condor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovember, 2004 as clearance without payment of duty with the consequences. The Department was free to have preceded to seize the goods wherever they were after treating them as non-duty paid. However, such action was not taken in this case. Admittedly it was a case of deemed removal without payment of duty, though unintentional, and the same warrants penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rule....