ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.
2. Seiko Plast is a manufacturer of plastic articles and Mangilal Mehta and Ashok Nahar are its partners. The order passed by the Joint Commissioner, demanded duty on the goods removed by the assessee without payment of duty, imposed a penalty on it under Section 11AC of Rs. 1,01,455/- equal to the duty demanded and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 9(2) read with Rules 52A, 209A read with Rule 173Q. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each on the other appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals before him for failure to deposit the entire penalty. Hence these appeals.
3. Normally I would have sent the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) after passing appropriate orders on the question of recovery. However, the issue being simple and financial hardship is being pleaded, I have decided to take up the appeal themselves, after waiving deposits.
4. The common representative for the appellants does not dispute the liability to duly which he says has already been paid. He contends that having regard to the fact that duty was paid before issue of show cause notice, leniency is called for in the matter of penalty. He further contends that penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 173Q in addition to the penalty imposed under Section 11 AC.
5. I do not find it possible to accept that merely because the assessee paid duty after the commissioning of the offence known to the department, leniency should be shown in the matter of penalty. Such an argument is totally lacking in justification or logic. In a case where a person has contravened the law is sticken by pangs of conscience and even before the department is aware of the commission makes full confession to the departmental authorities and pays the duty due, there can be a case for leniency. However, this cannot hold true for a person who pays the duty after the offence is detected or after he became aware of such detection by the department as the case here. However, I agree that penalty of Rs. 50,000/- citing various rules is not justifiable. I accordingly set aside that penalty.
6. No arguments has been advanced before me about the quantum of penalty imposed on the other two appellants. I therefore confirm the penalty on them.
7. Appeal 2104/02 allowed in part. Appeals 2102 and 2103/02 dismissed.