ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs, we proceed to dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides as the issue lies in a narrow compass.
2. Shri T. Vishwanathan, ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellant does not dispute the confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 1,77,884/- and of Rs. 35,534/- confirmed by the authorities below in respect of waste and scrap generated in the factory of job workers to whom the appellant had sent the goods under the provisions of Rule 57F(4) and fairly agree that it was the appellant’s liability to pay the duty on such scraps but submits that the same was not paid either by the job workers or by the appellant under a bona fide belief that the same does not attract duty. He also points out that the some of the waste was invisible waste which according to them was to the tune of 30%, but the Revenue while determining the duty liability, has given the benefit on account of invisible scrap only to the extent of 15%. However, he makes it clear this argument is only for the purpose of penalty and not for duty confirmed.
3. Shri Bablani, ld. Jt. CDR, appearing for the Revenue submits that since there has been a violation of provision of Central Excise Law, the penalty has to be imposed upon the appellants. As regards, the quantum of penalty, he leaves same to the discretion of the Bench.
4. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances and the submissions made by both sides and we are of the view that the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon the appellants is much on the higher side. As the duty in question stands fully deposited by the appellants, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/-. But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty, the appeal is otherwise rejected.