CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Shri M.V. Ravindran, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellants have been penalized under Rule 173Q for violation of Rule 173H inasmuch as they received back duty paid goods for repairs after about a year without permission of the proper officer. However, he states that the goods were subsequently repaired and removed without payment of duty which has been not objected to. For receipt of duty paid goods in contravention of Rule 173H, there is no provision under Rule 173Q for imposition of penalty. At the most the department can impose penalty of Rs. 1,000/ - which is the maximum amount prescribed under Rule 210 at the material time.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. In such a case where Rule 173H has been contravened for receipt of goods beyond the prescribed period, Rule 173Q cannot be applied which deals with removal of goods. As such, as contended by the appellants the maximum amount of penalty that can be imposed under Rule 210 is Rs. 1,000/ -.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - imposed under the impugned order is reduced to Rs. 1,000/ -. Appeal is allowed in the above terms.