2018 (7) TMI 407

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various Iron and Steel items classifiable under different chapters of CETA, 1985. A Show Cause Notice dated 18.09.2001 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 19,60,963.00. The appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g a fresh Order. In Denovo Adjudication the Learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 11,02,178.00 on 445.370 M.T. and dropped the demand of duty of Rs. 6,11,670.00 on 266.120 M.T and also imposed penalty of Rs. 3,50,000.00 under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 and further penalty of Rs. 11,02,178.00 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the appellant had already paid 25% of amount of duty as penalty. I find that the Show Cause Notice proposed demand of duty of Rs. 19,60,963.00 in respect of 711.49 MT of goods cleared without payment of duty for captive consumption. It is seen from the Final Order dated 18.07.2007 of the Tribunal that the appellant had not disputed the demand in respect of 445.370 M.T. and also paid the entire a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....blic Sector Undertaking, have no persona/ interest or motive to engage themselves in the activities resulting in the evasion of duty. Accordingly I take a lenient view and do not accept the proposal to impose penalty on notice no. 2 to 6." 4. Thus, the contention of the Learned Counsel that the Adjudicating authority had not given any finding in respect of imposition of penalty cannot be sustai....