ORDER
Krishna Kumar, Member (J)
1. Heard ld. SDR for the Revenue. None is present for the respondents.
2. It is seen from the order passed by the lower authorities that the partners of the respondent in their statement given under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, have clearly admitted that the activities having been undertaken by them amount to manufacture and they have defaulted in not taking the registration and following the due procedure as per law. It is also seen that the customers to whom they have sold the goods, in their statement have admitted to have purchased the computer from the respondent under sale invoices. Therefore, after going through the order passed by the adjudicating authority, we are satisfied that the activities undertaken by the respondents are well covered within the term of ‘manufacture’ and as such we confirm the duty amount against the respondent. However, it is seen that equal penalty has also been imposed on the respondent. Since the respondents were under bonafide belief as pleaded by them that they were ignorant about the law and the procedure to follow, we find that the penalty imposed is harsh and excessive.
3. We, therefore, reduce the penalty amount to 10% of the penalty imposed. However, in the facts of the case we do not interfere in the redemption fine imposed against the respondent and the same is sustained.
The appeal stands disposed off in the above terms.
(Pronounced in Court)