ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member
1. The appellants are the manufacture of M.S. Ingots and Rolled Products like Bars, Angles, Channels Flats etc. falling under Sub-heading 7206.90 and 7214.90 respectively. The Officers of Anti-Evasion Wing of the Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh visited their factory premises on 24.12.91. On physical verification of the stocks, some finished goods were found, which were seized and in respect of them separate proceedings were initiated against the appellants. The visiting officers, on verification of the record, also came to the conclusion that they had wilfully and intentionally suppressed 1351.817 MTs of Steel Ingots during the period from 18.4.91 to 28.7.91 and transferred the same clandestinely to their Rolling Division and did not account for the same in their RG-I account. Accordingly, they were issued a show cause notice dated 22.8.95 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigar-I calling upon them to show cause why the duty amounting to Rs.8,53,388.04 should not be demanded from them and why a penalty should not be imposed on them. Shri Surinder Paul Singhi, partner of the party, was also called upon to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on him under Rule 209-A of the Rules.
2. On considering the reply of the noticy parties the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order dated 29.1.99 confirmed the demand of Rs.8,53,388/- on the appellants under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on the party under Rule 173Q. the Additional Commissioner in the same order imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Paul Singhi under Rule 209A of the Rules.
3. The appellants M/s. Surindra Steel Rolling Mills filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 25.9.2000 set aside the demand of duty relating to the Steel Ingots weighing 444.767 Mts and confirmed the duty on the balance of the quantity. He also reduced the penalty to Rs.1.5 lakhs.
4. The appellants are in appeal against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Shri G.S. Bhangoo, Advocate appearing for the appellants has drawn attention to the Order-in-Original in which a reference is made to their submission before the adjudicating authority that the entire amount of the demand i.e. Rs.8,53,388.04 has been debited by them in their RG-23A Part II account, vide Entry No.48/1024 dated 31.7.97. The learned Advocate, therefore, submits that the present Stay Petition is only for the amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs penalty. Shri Swatantra Kumar, JDR appearing for the respondent, on perusal of the order-in-original and the Appellate order, agrees with these facts.
5. I have considered the submissions made before me. As already stated, the appellants have debited the entire amount of duty confirmed on them and they are seeking Stay against the pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.1.5 lakhs. Though, the amount of relief given by Commissioner (Appeals) is not quantified in his order, but this approximately comes to Rs. 5.68 lakhs. Taking into consideration the facts presented before me and on perusal of the record, I waive the pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs.1.5 lakhs imposed on the appellants and stay its recovery till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the condition that they will not take back Rs.5.68 lakhs in their account the amount of relief allowed to them by the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. The Stay Petition is disposed of in the above terms. The appeal shall come up for final disposal in its own turn.
7. Announced and dictated in Court.