CCE Vs. ADITYA CEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEALS taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with consent of the departmental representative. The appellants are absent and unrepresented despite notice.

(2.) THE appeals are against imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Rs. 50,000/ - on Riddhi Siddhi Processors (appeal E/1114) and penalties of Rs. 25,000/ - and Rs. 10,000/ - on Jag Prakash Synthetics (appeal E1112) and Atul G. Gandhi (appeal E/1113) respectively under Rule 209A. Penalties have been imposed on the finding that Riddhi Siddhi Processors evaded duty payable on goods processed by it. The other two persons abetted the evasion. Atul Gandhi was at the relevant time partner in Riddhi Siddhi Processors and proprietor of Jag Prakash Synthetics.

(3.) THE only common contention in these appeals is that, duty having been paid prior to issue of notice, penalty is not imposable. The decision of the single member of the Tribunal in Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (46) RLT 169 and other decisions followed by it were cited in support. The departmental representative contends that in the light of the clear words of the provisions of law, there is no justification to hold penalty cannot be imposed solely because duty has been paid before issue of notice, and says that the decisions cited require reconsideration.