ORDER
Krishna Kumar, Member (J)
1. Shri D.D. Gwalani, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants fairly concedes that the appellants have no merits in the case. However, he contended that the entire demand is time barred as he has been filing classification list from time to time which was clearly within the knowledge of the department. The Addl. Commissioner vide order dated 10.12.99 decided that the Show Cause Notice dated 14 Mar 1999 was time barred. The show cause notice dated 14.6.99 covered the period from October 94 to March 95. Therefore his contention is that since the show cause notice in the present appeal was issued on 14.6.99, this period has to be taken as time barred and there is no suppression on the part of the appellant. He also confronted me to page 29 of the paper book being the Order passed by the Addl. Commissioner as mentioned above. However, he submitted that 100% penalty has been imposed on the company and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each has been imposed on Mr. Bhandari and Mr. Katoch. He submitted that imposition of 100% penalty is highly excessive and is not justified particularly when the Addl. Commissioner upheld the demand as time barred relating to the period March 94 to November 94.
2. Shri. M.H. Sheikh, Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue drew my attention to page 2 of the Show Cause Notice dated 11.3.99 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the classification list is only for export. He, therefore, submitted that this cannot be taken for home consumption and as such the appellants are not entitled for exemption as claimed by them. He also drew my attention to page No. 2 and 3 of the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has referred to the statements of Shri Bhandari and Shri K.C. Katoch as corroborated. They have admitted that they suppressed the facts that the products in question are pharmacopoeial drugs i.e. other than P & P Medicaments by not declaring the name of pharmacopoeia i.e I.P. in their declarations knowingly, they had not reversed the modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of the products cleared at nil rate of duty. It is also recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in view of the evidence of suppression solely to avail and utilize the inadmissible modvat credit, the appellant plea that they were under some bonafide belief that modvat credit is not required to be reversed for the medicaments cleared to Hospital at nil rate is without any basis and is unacceptable. Therefore, the Ld. JDR contended that this is clear cut suppression admitted by the appellant and as such the extended period has been rightly invoked by the lower authorities.
3. After hearing rival submissions and perusal of the records, I find that imposition of 100% penalty on the Company does not seem to be justified. Therefore, I reduce the penalty amount on the Company from Rs. 1,27,357/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Subject to this, the appeals are dismissed.
(Dictated in Open Court)