CCE Vs. PERL INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Revenue against order -in -appeal No. 252/CE/BPL/2006 dated 05/1/07 passed by CCE (Appeals), Bhopal dismissing the Department's appeal for enhancing the penalty imposed on the respondent under Rule 173Q(1) to Rs. 5,000/ -, as according to the Department, the minimum penalty imposable under Rule 173Q(1) for contraventions covered under Clause (a), (b) & (c) of Rule 173Q(1) is Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) NONE appeared for the respondent. Heard Shri S. Gautam, the learned Departmental Representative who in support of his contention cited the Tribunal's order in the case of CCE, Lucknow v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. reported in : 2006 (193) E.L.T. 365 (Tri. Del.) wherein it was held that for wrong availment of Cenvat credit, the minimum penalty imposable under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules is Rs. 5,000/ -. He also pleaded that in view of the irregularities found in the Respondent's factory - shortage of finished goods involving duty of Rs. 5,320/ -, excess stock of inputs and unaccounted finished goods worth Rs. 3,20,500/ -, penalty more than Rs. 1,000/ - should have been imposed.

(3.) ACCORDING to Rule 173Q(1) one of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the penalty imposable on a manufacturer, producer, registered person of a warehouse, or a registered dealer for contraventions of the nature referred to in Clause (a), (b), (bb), (bbb), (c) or (d) of Sub -rule 1 is "an amount not exceeding three times, the value of the excisable goods in respect of which the contravention has been committed or Rs. 5,000/ - whichever is greater." From the wordings of this Rule, it is clear that what this Rule is prescribes is only an upper limit of quantum of penalty which can be imposed for these contraventions. The Department's contention would have been correct if in place of the words "penalty not exceeding" the words "penalty equal" had been used. I find that same view has been taken by Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd. reported in, 2008 (225) E.L.T. 348 (Tri. - LB). In view of this, I find no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The same is dismissed.