2002 (9) TMI 231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the quantum of penalty from Rs. 49,357/- to Rs. 12,500/-. The appellant is represented by ld. JDR. There is no representation for the respondent, but there is a request from their Counsel for adjournment. 2. After careful examination of the record, I find that the grounds raised by the appellants against the reduction of penalty are prima faci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. 4. Ld. JDR reiterates the grounds of the appeal and submits that, under Rule 57-I(4), it was mandatory to impose penalty equal to the amount of disallowed Modvat credit on the person who availed the credit wrongly by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion, suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules with intent to evade payment of duty. Ld. DR....