2010 (9) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Petitioner. Shri Vikrant Kockria, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral)]. - This appeal has been preferred under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 against the order (Annexure A-3) dated 27-11-2008 [2009 (13) S.T.R. 586 (Tri. - Del.)] passed by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uced to Rs. 25,000/- while penalty under Section 78 was set aside. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that there is no provision for reduction of penalty and if a case was made out penalty has to be minimum. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show how penalty less than minimum can be imposed, if mens rea exists. T....