SHIVAGRICO IMPLEMENTS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order -in -appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has enhanced the penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) against the appellants.

(2.) The learned Counsel has contended that since the duty had already been paid along with the interest, the penalty equal to the amount of duty had been wrongly imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned SDR has stated that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was not reasonable and that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly enhanced the same.