CCE Vs. SHAM UDYOG LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above captioned appeals, the Revenue has contested the reduction in penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) through different orders on the respondents. This order will dispose of both the appeals as the issue involved is common.

(2.) THE learned SDR has contended that reduction in penalty, when there was lapse on the part of the respondents in depositing the duty under Section 3A of the Act in time, was not proper and legal, the penalty should have been equal to the duty amount defaulted. On the other hand, the earned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.

(3.) WE find that the dispute relates to the period October 1998 to December, 1998 when the respondents were required to deposit the duty of Rs. 15 lakhs but they deposited only Rs. 7 lakhs. The demand raised against them was of the short paid duty of Rs. 8 lakhs, but the respondents had preferred abatement claims on account of closure of their factory during the period October, 1998 to December, 1998, the total duty amount claimed by way of abatement was of Rs. 5,06,988/ -. Those claims were not decided in time which resulted in non -payment of full duty by the respondents later. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming the duty demand, has reduced the penalty to Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the ground that the abatement claims for the respondents remained pending for decision for a long time with the Department. We do not find any sufficient ground to disagree with his reasoning. In our view, he has exercised the discretion after applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case under which the duty was paid short by the respondents, while reducing the penalty. The discretion exercised by him in this regard, cannot be said to be arbitrary, unjust by law. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by him in both the appeals are upheld. The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.