2004 (8) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rawal, Member (T)]. - The Revenue has filed these 2 appeals against a common Order-in-Appeal No. 618-619/2003, dated 30-9-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty of Rs. 32 lakhs imposed on M/s. Karan Processors to Rs. 16 lakhs. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents. In fact notice issued to them for hearing had been received back from t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....educed the penalty to Rs. 16 lakhs; that as per Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules penalty equal to an amount of duty outstanding from assessee or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is greater is to be imposed; that thus the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority was proper and as per the Central Excise Rules; that there is no discretion provided for in the Central Excise Rules for imposition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R has relied upon the decision in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. in support of the appeal that the penalty has to be levied equal to the amount of duty outstanding from the assessee. We observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [1998 (99) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.)] wherein Section 7(....