9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 18-7-2005 vide which learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Heard both sides and perused the record. The issue involved in this case is that the respondent is penalized under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to file ER 4 for the financial year 2003-04 in terms of the above mentioned Rule. I agree with the appellant that the above mentioned notification/Rule, does not provide for filing of ER 4 for the year 2003-04. This notification merely provides for filing of ER 4 only by 30th November of the succeeding financial year. That leaves eight months time at the disposal of the assessee to prepare and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer, - (a) removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules; or (b) does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him; or (c) engages in the manufacture, production or storage of any excisable goods without h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reading of the said rule, imposition of penalty under Rule 25 in this case does not arise for non-filing of the Annual Financial information statement. 5. Accordingly, in view of the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the provisions of the law, I find no substance in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Impugned Order does not require any interference and is upheld. Appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
