FOAM TEX INDIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order -in -appeal, the learned Counsel has only contested the penalty aspect. The impugned order regarding confirmation of the duty of Rs. 1/45,1947 - against the appellants, had not been contested by the Counsel.

(2.) Regarding the imposition of penalty equal to the amount of duty detailed above, the learned Counsel has prayed for the substantial reduction on the ground that the appellants voluntarily informed the Department that they had crossed the exemption limit and duty on the clearances for the period in dispute was payable by them and that they even deposited the duty. The learned SDR, has on the other hand, reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and stated that in order to avoid their trap by the Anti -evasion Officers, the appellants suo motu came forward and deposited the duty. Therefore, the penalty amount has been rightly confirmed against them.

(3.) But in my view, the prayer of the learned Counsel deserves to be accepted. The record shows that initially the appellants were availing SSI exemption. But during the period in dispute (1995 -96) before the enactment of Section 11AC, they themselves informed the Department that their clearances had crossed the SSI exemption limit and they deposited the duty for the period in question themselves. Therefore, keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and the conduct of the appellants, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 25,000/ -. Except for this modification in the penalty, the impugned order is upheld. The appeal of the appellants is disposed of accordingly.