2002 (11) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Central Excise Act and Rules. Against the dropping of penal proceedings under Rule 173Q, the Revenue had not filed any appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner in the impugned order accepted the assessee's plea that there was no intention to evade payment of duty and the duty had been paid on 16-5-2001 much before the date of issue of show cause notice dt. 25-5-2001. While setting aside the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, and interest claimed under Section 11AB of the Act, he followed the Tribunal's ruling rendered in the case of Amristar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 437 (T). However, inadvertently, he noted that the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q was only a nominal penalty a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imposing mandatory penalty is concerned. So far as cross appeal is concerned, ld. SDR reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings. 4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the ld. Commissioner had followed the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Amristar Crown Caps (P) Ltd., which has been followed by this Bench also and he filed a copy of Final Order No. 1169/2002, dt. 18-10-2002 rendered in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Sundaram Industries wherein the Tribunal has up held the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order to set aside the penalty under situation where the duty has been paid even before the issue of show cause notice. He contents that the judgment of Amristar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. (supra) has been rendered after due consideration of several ot....