Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 346 - CESTAT, AHEMDABADPenalty under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - whether equivalent amount of penalty has to be imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 or the same can be reduced - There is no dispute that the appellant had discharged duty liability on clearances made during the period January 2008 to March 2008, albeit through RG23 A Part II i.e. CENVAT account - It is also not in dispute that the appellant had enough balance in RG23A Part II to discharge duty liability - At the same time, we also find that debiting RG 23A Part II was no good as discharge of duty, but there is no default of payment of duty, which is found in this case as the appellant had not paid duty liability for the month of November 2007. The appellant has rectified the error by debiting the amount through PLA towards discharge of duty liability. We consider the error of debiting the CENVAT account during the period January 2008 to March 2008 as mere technical lapse and reduce the penalty imposed by adjudicating authority to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
|