2007 (5) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., he reduced the penalty Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five Thousand). His observations in support of the said reduction in penalty may be noted "It is observed that the appellant had deposited outstanding amount of duty along with interest even before adjudication. Regarding imposition of penalty, by now it is established legal position that wherever penalty equivalent to amount involved has been prescribed, it is the maximum limit. It is not mandatory and the Adjudicating Authority has the discretion to impose lesser penalty, keeping in view the circumstances of the case. Further, the issue already stand decided in favour of the appellant vide Order-in-Appeal No. 147/CE/APPL/LDH-II/04 dated 27-2-2004 in the case of M/s. K.C. Alloys & Steel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, 1944 is in appeal and appeal filed by Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is admitted and pending for decision. 6. That, the Civil Appeal No. D9351 of 2001 filed by CCE, New Delhi against CECAT Order No. 20/2001A, dated 28-2-2001 reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 248 (Tri. -Delhi) Commissioner v. Maurya Udyog Ltd., is admitted by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein Appellate Tribunal in its order in question had relied upon the decision in case of M/s. Escort JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi holding that limit fixed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the maximum limit and authority have discretion to impose lesser penalty. 7. That, in a similar case of Ambuja Synthetic Mills Ltd. v. UOI, 2002 (50) RLT 133 (Guj.), the depart....