2007 (3) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....:- "Whether the mandatory penalty imposed in terms of the erstwhile Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, can be reduced by the Hon'ble Tribunal?." 2. The respondent M/s. Amrit Varsha Ispat (P) Ltd., Dhalwala Industrial Area, Tehri Garhwal has been engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingot classifiable under sub-heading No. 7206.90 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs for the period from Feb. 99 to March 99 and ordered the adjustment of Rs. 10 Lakhs deposited and also confirmed the demand of interest amounting to Rs. 1,41,781/- under proviso 3(i) of Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondent/assessee was also imposed penalty of Rs. 35 Lakhs. 4. Aggrieved with the above order of Addl. Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... especially where the assessee has already paid the duty with interest. The above view of the Tribunal is fortified with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Supreme Steels and General Mills reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.). 8. It is well settled that penalty equal to duty is not mandatory condition, except where there is element of mens rea. In the in....