Parekh Plast Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

1. the appellants were clearing certain goods manufactured on job work basis in terms of price lists filed and approved where the prices were filed on cost construction price. subsequently, the assessee manufactured goods on their own and supplied them on higher prices.they accordingly filed another price list which was also approved. in spite of the approval of higher prices, for sometime, the assessee continued to clear the goods on the basis of the earlier approved price. on a show cause notice being issued on 24-8-93, the assessee voluntarily remitted the duty. the asstt. commissioner confirmed the duty although the duty was earlier paid and also imposed penalties totally amounting to rs. 5,200/-. the assessee then agitated the imposition of penalty before the collector (appeals). the collector (appeals) held that under the self-removal procedure, the responsibility was cast upon the assessee to show that the duty was paid correctly. the assessee having themselves filed the higher price list continued to pay on the lower price which situation attracted penalty. on his upholding the lower orders, the present appeal has been filed. request has been made for disposal on merits.2. in the appeal memorandum, the contention made is that the assessee, having deposited the duty even before the adjudication order was passed, does not deserve any penalty.3. we find that the assessee in reply to the show cause notice had offered to pay provided no penalty was imposed upon them. according to them, it was a genuine error on their part. we find that the conduct of the assessee is improper. having realized their error, it was proper for them to have corrected the situation without negotiations and without putting certain conditions. we find that the asstt collector was correct in imposing penalty upon them. we, however, find that for the same offence, there was no necessity for separate penalty to be imposed under separate rules. we, therefore, reduce the penalty from rs......