TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel castings and other parts of automobiles. They paid duty for the month of July 2007 on 12th September 2007 along with interest instead of 5th August, 2007 as prescribed in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2006 (CER). For removal of the excisabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (225) E.L.T. 395 (Tri. Ahmd.) (ii) Condor Power Products P. Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 137 (Tri.) It is submitted that proper rule relevant was Rule 27 of CER which provided for imposing maximum penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. It is submitted that penalty may be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. I have heard ld. JCDR for some time who reiterated the findings contained in the impugned order. 3. I hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contravened any statutory provision. As regards the applicability of the Rule 25 of the CER, the Tribunal found as follows:- 5. Since there is no dispute over the fact that the late payment of duty was, according to the appellant, as explained by them from time to time to the Revenue authorities, due to financial crises, and that the returns were duly filed disclosing all these transactions, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
