2004 (6) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nand, learned Advocate for the Appellants and Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. Learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants manufacture man-made fabrics on job work basis; that the Central Excise officers visited their factory premises on 9-11-2000; that the scrutiny of the documents revealed that they had not accounted for 1,06,994 m of grey fabrics received by them in their Form IV register during the period 1-11-2001 to 9-11-2001; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 34/2003, dated 14-7-2003 has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,55,952/- besides imposing penalty of equivalent amount on Appellant No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- on Appellant No. 2 which has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent and the penal consequences, as provided in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act will be rightly invocable. However, taking into consideration the fact that the entire duty had been deposited by the appellants even before the issue of show cause notice, there is no warrant for imposition of maximum penalty under the provisions of Section 11AC. The penalty of Rs. 50,000/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, reduce the penalty on Appellant No. 1 to Rs. 50,000/-. Penalty is also imposable on appellant No. 2, who is the Executive Director of the Appellant-Company. However the penalty imposed on Appellant No. 2 is on the higher side which is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. 4. Learned Advocate also mentioned that when the officers visite....