SURIE ENGG. WORKS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the Order -in -Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order -in -Original.

(2.) Ld. Counsel has contended that the search of the factory premises was not taken by the officers of the Central Excise in accordance with provisions of Rules 198 to 208 as they neither prepared Panchnama nor associated any witness. He has further submitted that the statement of the proprietor of the firm could not be taken into account for confirming the duty and the penalty, without seeking corroboration from any independent evidence. Therefore, the impugned order deserves be set aside/ in respect of confirmation of the duty.

(3.) Regarding the imposition of penalty, Ld. Counsel has contended that the firm and the proprietor both could not be penalised and since the duty was deposited before the issuance of SCN, no penalty could be even otherwise imposed legally. To substantiate this contention, Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal (Chennai Bench) in the case of Dynamatic Technologies Ltd, v. CCE, Chennai, 2003 (54) RLT 675 wherein it has been observed that penalty will not be leviable when duty amount has been voluntarily paid before the issue of the SCN.