2004 (11) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Member (T)]. - Revenue has filed the present Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 376/04 dated 28-5-04 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty from Rs. 22.87 lakhs to Rs. 1.5 lakh. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of respondents M/s. Rana Steels, Shri Alok Arora, learned Advocate has requested for adjournment of hearing on account of some personal diffic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpugned order, had confirmed the demand of duty but reduced the penalty observing that they had not discharged their duty liability in time due to financial constraints and major part of duty was deposited even before the issue of show cause notice and the balance amount of duty was paid during pendency of the Adjudication proceedings along with interest on delayed payment. The Commissioner (Appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Pee Aar Steel Ltd. v. CCE Meerut [2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (Allahabad)]. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not in dispute that the respondents had not discharged the duty liability within the time limit stipulated in Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, the penalty is to be imposable on the respo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra) wherein the Madras High Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court and BHEL has held that the penalty mentioned in the above said Rules should be taken as only maximum amount which will be levied and the assessing Authority has discretion even to levy lesser amount depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It has not been disp....