9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals), vide which he has reduced the penalty imposed upon the respondents in terms of the provision of Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard Ms.R.Jagdev, learned SDR. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 3. The dispute in the present appeal against that part of the impugned order vide which he has reduce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Cenvat Credit facility. They submitted that it is on record that they have always been filing the ER-3 Returns within the due date and the only mistake is that they had filed quarterly Return instead of monthly Return. I find that sufficient force in the appellant's submissions as they were still a small scale unit but due to the fact that they had foregone their SSI exemption, they had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER-I returns. As such, the lapse on the part of the assessee was technical one for which penalty is reduced to Rs.5,000/-. In find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In any case, penalty being less than Rs.50,000/-, Revenue's filing of appeal against the said impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be appreciated. 5. In view of the foregoing, I re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
