- (1.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) This Central Excise Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'), filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Tribunal can override the statutory provisions enshrined in the law in as much as the second proviso to Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, has been ignored in reducing the penalty wherein specific provisions are enlisted that the benefit of reduced penalty shall be available only when penalty is paid within 30 days of the date of communication of the Order which is not the case in the present matter?"
(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the Central Excise Department that in the present case, the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of PVC Leather cloth. On 22.01.2002, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellant and conducted stock verification, in which they detected shortage of inputs and finished goods involving central exercise duty of Rs.1,23,400/-. The authorized signatory of the appellant-Company admitted the shortage. He stated that the said quantity was cleared from their factory. They have also deposited the entire amount of duty on 21.01.2002 and 02.02.2002. On 9/10th July, 2002, the Central Excise Officers intercepted a truck carrying finished goods of the appellant-Company without accompanying any central excise invoice. The appellants deposited the entire amount of duty on the goods cleared of Rs.19,522/-. A shortage of input credit of Rs.47,648/- was detected during stock verification on that day. Two show cause notices were issued in respect of demand of duty and imposition of penalty. The Original Authority confirmed the demand duty of Rs.1,90,570/-, and imposed penalty of equal amount. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.;