FABDEON ENGINEERING Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this stay application was heard it appeared that at this stage the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done, after giving the formal waiver of pre -deposit of the penalty.

(2.) WE have heard Shri S.V. Yakkundi Advocate for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue.

(3.) THE assessees cleared certain goods on 27.5.1997 attracting duty amounting to Rs. 84,500/ -. The invoices covering the removal contained endorsement that duty stood debited in the PLA vide entry at Serial No. 2. Similarly on 5.7.1997 the assessees had cleared goods attracting duty amounting to Rs. 21,354/ - indicating on the invoice that the duty was paid vide debiting RG 23A Part II. However, when clearing these two consignments, the assessees had not debited the PLA or the RG 23A register, respectively. This fact came to notice at a later date at the time of audit by the Central Excise Officers. The audit party also found that for long periods, the assessees had not made any entires regarding production of the excisable commodities in the RG 1 register etc. The assessees debited the relevant books and also paid interest on delayed payment. Subsequently, show cause notice was issued alleging penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944. After hearing the assessee, the Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 1,05,000/ - on the assessees. Against this order the assessees filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), along with the stay application. The Commissioner directed the applicants to deposit the entire amount of penalty as a pre -condition to hearing of their appeal. The assessees did not do so nor did they report compliance. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore dismissed the appeal before him. Hence the present appeal.