KRISHNA KUMAR, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal against the Order -in -Appeal No. 1582/CE/CHD/2000, dated 23.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh upholding the redemption fine of Rs. 40,000 (rupees forty thousand) and personal penalty of Rs. 27,703 (rupees twenty seven thousand seven hundred three) which is under challenge.
(2.)SHRI K.K. Anand, Learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant(s) and he has submitted that the intercepted goods were duly covered by invoice No. 147, dated 12.6.98 which was issued at 1930 hrs., whereas the truck in question was intercepted at 21.00 hrs. The above invoice duly finds mentions in the Order under appeal. Besides, he has also submitted that the excise duty on the goods has been duly paid and reflected in the said invoice and the duty was paid through P.L.A. which has sufficient balance on the relevant date. A photocopy of P.L.A. is available at page 23 and the balance of Rs. 60,475 is shown in June 1998. Due to inadvertence and mistake the debit entry could not be made in P.L.A. though the goods removed were duly entered in RG -1 register. He also submitted that there is no allegation of mala fide intention with intent to evade payment of duty. He referred to the Circular No. 40/28/64 -CX. 1, dated 28.4.1964 issued by the C.B.E. and C. and in the illustrations given for guidance relating to some of the technical violation on flimsy grounds or other cases, where seizures may not be warranted, in sub -para (a) it is provided that "Removal of goods which have been duly entered in the production records under cover of a proper gate pass but without making a corresponding debit entry in the P.L.A. provided there is adequate credit balance in the P.L.A." In support of his contention he also referred to the decisions reported in 2001 (124) ELT 843 and 2001 (45) RLT 412. He, therefore, forcefully submitted that the imposition of the mandatory penalty and the fine are not warranted.
(3.)SHRI H.C. Verma, learned DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he submitted that this is a clear cut case of clandestine removal because no debit entry has been made in the P.L.A. and he fully supported the findings of the lower authorities in this regard.
After hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the records I find that the ends of justice would be met if the penalty amount is reduced to Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) as well as the redemption fine is also reduced to Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand). The appeal is disposed of accordingly.