TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against impugned order-in-appeal No. 610-CE/APPL./KNP/2006 dt. 30-11-06 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Kanpur by which the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Deptt. s review appeal seeking enhancement of the penalty imposed on the respondent from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 10,000/-. The Dy. Commissioner vide order-in-original dt. 29-10-05 had imposed penalty of Rs. 2500/- on Shri Mridulendra Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has dismissed the review appeal against the present appeal has been filed. 2. None appeared for the respondent. 2.1 Heard Ld. DR who reiterating the grounds of appeal pleaded that the minimum penalty imposable under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is Rs. 10,000/- and hence the penalty imposed on the respondent may be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty equal to had been used. The way Rule 26 and Rule 25(1) are worded, they prescribe an upper limit of penalty - if the upper limit of penalty would be Rs. 10,000/- and if the duty involved is more than Rs. 10,000/- the upper limit would be the duty involved. These Rules do not prescribe any minimum penalty. I also find that Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. Rama Wood Cra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
