TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. These three appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 11-3-05, by which the Penalties, which were imposed by the adjudicating authority on the respondents were reduced to Rs. 5,000/- as against the penalties equal to the amount of delayed duty payment. 2. The adjudicating authority by resorting to provisions of Rule 25 of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the material on record, came to a finding that the clearances were duly reflected in the monthly returns and there was no intention to evade duty on the part of the assessee. It was, therefore, held that no penalty could be imposed under Rule 25 on the ground that there was intention to evade payment of duty which in fact does not exist. He however, held that since no evidence was ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this basis, the appellant Commissioner has rightly concluded that no malafide intention of duty evasion could be attributed to the assessee. Under Rule 25, it is, inter alia, provided that penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed or Rs. 10,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
