9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. Shri Krishna Mohan Menon, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 62-CE/ALLD/2008, dated 29-5-08, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty of Rs. 75000/- imposed under Rule 27 by the original authority to Rs. 2,000/-. 2.Heard both sides. 3. The dispute relates to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on them under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original authority held that the party committed offence 15 times, rendered themselves liable for penal actions 15 times under Rule 27 ibid and accordingly, imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- [15 x 5000] under Rule 27 ibid. The Commissioner (Appeals) taking note of the fact that the respondents were an SSI unit and were filing returns on q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of the said sub-section 2 of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944." Accordingly, the appeal stands filed. 5.Learned DR reiterates the grounds of appeal. 6. As per the grounds of appeal, the party had defaulted 12 times during the period from April 2006 to March, 2007 in filing monthly ER-1 return. The grounds of appeal also find fault with the Commissioner (Appeals) in exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
