2017 (7) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: S. K. Mohanty Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The applicant has filed this Miscellaneous Application for rectification of mistake and for recalling the Final Order No.A/55862-63/2016 SM(BR) dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Tribunal. 3. Paragraphs 3 and 6 in the Miscellaneous Application are relevant for consideration of the prayer made b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rnestly requests the Hon'ble Bench to kindly recall the Final Order No. A/55862-63/2016-SM[BR], dated 15.12.2016 to the extent of fully setting aside the personal penalty of Rs. 2 Lacs imposed on Applicant under Rule 26, 2002 on account of the fact that, no excisable goods were confiscated by the Department and following the case law of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2015 (328) E.L.T. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. In the present case, the adjudicating authority has imposed fine on the appellant no. 1 under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in lieu of the confiscation of goods cleared in contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise law. From the operative part of the adjudication order, it is evident that goods were liable for confiscation. Thus, the provisions of Rule 26 of the Cen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the appellant no. 2 under Rule 26 ibid is proper and justified. However, considering the duty liability involved in this case, I am of the view that the quantum of penalty can be reduced in case of the appellant no.2. Accordingly, the quantum of penalty is reduced from Rs. 2, 00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 7. In view of the above discussions, paragraph 8 in the order dated 15.12.2016 is modified....