ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran
1. By this appeal, appellants are challenging the correctness of Order-in-Original No.44/96 dated 18.10.96 by which the Commissioner has denied the concessional rate of duty for clearances upto Rs.20 lakhs which the appellants claim to be entitled to under the notification No.175/86. They state that they are liable to pay duty beyond the clearances of Rs.20 lakhs which they have done so, by pre-depositing it at the time of hearing the stay application. It is contended that the Commissioner is not justified in imposing equal amount of penalty under Rule 173Q for payment of duty Rs.66,480/-.
2. Ld.Counsel relies on the judgement of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE Madras Vs HELIOS ANTENNAS & ELECTRONICS reported in 1998 (102) ELT 37 (T), wherein the Tribunal has clearly held that the slab of concessional rate of duty noted in the notification is required to be extended. He further submits that if the concessional rate of duty is granted under the notification, the total liability will be only Rs.15,000/- and the commensurate penalty should not be more than Rs.10% of the duty liability as held in several judgements of the Tribunal.
3. Heard Ld.SDR submits that penalty is leviable in the case appellants had not taken out the licence and had cleared the goods without payment of duty. Therefore, appropriate penalty be imposed in the matter. He reiterates the Commissioner’s finding on merits.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions, and on perusal of the Tribunal’s judgement cited supra, we see lot of merit in the submission made by Ld. Counsel that appellants are entitled to the concessional rate of duty to the limit already laid down by the notification that is to the extent of Rs.20 lakhs. The Commissioner’s denial of benefit beyond Rs.16 lakhs is not justified and payment of duty for clearances beyond Rs.16,15,100/- is required to be quashed and payment of duty on their clearances beyond Rs.20 lakhs is required to be confirmed. The Commissioner is not justified in imposing penalty of Rs.66,480/- being equal amount of duty, as appellants are entitled for the concessional rate and liability fill come down to a marginal level. Therefore, the penalty is required to be reduced in the present case. Taking into overall facts and circumstances of the case including the plea that appellant is a small scale industry, therefore penalty is reduced to Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only). Appeal is allowed in the above terms, by modifying the impugned order.
(pronounced and dictated in open court)