TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no dispute that the appellant were required to file ER-I Return electronically. Hence, the failure to pay duty electronically and file return electronically would attract penalty under Rule 27. The Rule 27 however provides for penalty which may extend to Rs. 5,000/-. The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is maximum penalty prescribed under this Rule. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th for not making the payment of duty electronically and another penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for each month for not filing ER-I Return electronically. Accordingly, the total penalty imposed by the order passed by the Superintendent was Rs. 40,000/- . On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals), this order of the Superintendent was upheld by the [Commissioner (Appeals)] vide order-in-original da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that there was failure on the part of the appellant to make payment of duty and filing of ER-I Return by electronic mode, pleaded for lenient view in imposing penalty. 4. Ms. Shweta Bector, ld. DR defended the impugned order reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. In terms of the Rule 8( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
