TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 8-6-2007 - [Order]- Heard both sides and perused record. 2. Revenue is aggrieved by the quashing of a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand) by Commissioner (Appeals). 3. In an adjudication proceeding the said penalty was imposed on the respondent Mr. Gupta under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in connection with certain Modvat irregularities comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent was not concerned with the Modvat credit dispute. Therefore, the issue that arises is whether in such a situation a penalty was imposable on the respondent under Rule 209A. The relevant rule read as under :- "209A. Penalty for certain offences. Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit dispute was in relation to goods which were not dealt with by the respondent. Therefore, the Rule provided no guide lines about the quantum of penalty. Imposition of penalty would be not possible in such a case. 7. In view of what is stated above, there is no merit in the revenue's appeal. It is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
