2011 (6) TMI 577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nobody to represent the appellant. However, the matter was studied on the basis of case records. 2. In this case, there is an application for condonation of delay for 74 days in filing the appeal. There is a stay application filed along with the appeal. 3. The reason given for delay in filing the appeal is that the appellant was under the impression that only one appeal may be filed because th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stead paid duty in cash under TR-6 challan. Since this amounted to contravention of Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, a SCN was issued to the party, which was adjudicated by order dated 31.3.2009 imposing a penalty of Rs.15,000/- on the appellant under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t only a violation of a procedural rule. However, I do not consider it proper to condone the matter on the ground that it is only violation of a procedure because if such argument is accepted all procedural rule will become meaningless and Government will not be able to frame any procedure, which may be necessary in public interest, is necessary. It is also relevant that for penalty under Rule 27, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X