9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 87-CE/Alld/2008, dated 3-11-2008. Cross Objection No. 23/2009 is related to this appeal. 2. Heard the learned SDR. None appears for the respondent. 3. The events connected to this appeal and cross objection show the functioning of some of the statutory authorities in very poor light. Audit officers noticed a short payment of Rs. 437/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties as follows :- (a) Rs. 437/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. (b) Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and (c) Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 13(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4. On appeal by the party, Commissioner (Appeals) s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice should have been issued as provided under provisions of Section 11A(2B). Why a show cause notice came to be issued is not forthcoming. Clearly, it is a case of non-application of mind. The Original Authority has found justification for imposing penalties totally amounting to Rs. 20,437/- in a case involving short levy of Rs. 437/- thus much in excess of the duty short levied. The penalty i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. 7.4 Further, it has been noticed that several such appeals filed by the Department in disputes involving petty amounts are surfacing in annoying frequency! Therefore, I am constrained to make the above unpleasant observations. The conduct of Committee in this case is insult to other duty-conscious and well meaning officers of the Department. 8. Obviously, there is no need to wast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
