2013 (4) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Rule 8(1), Rule 8(3A) and Rule 11(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. - Held that:- Provisions of Rule 25 are not applicable to the present case for want of intent to evade payment of duty. It is also pertinent to note that the lower appellate authority vacated Section 11AC penalty after holding that the case was only of interpretation of law and the same involved only a delay in payment of du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ning the provisions of Rule 8(1), Rule 8(3A) and Rule 11(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,19,760/- on the assessee under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, apart from confirming the demand of duty against them. Aggrieved, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... PLA. What emerges from these submissions is the assessee did not want to evade payment of duty. They wanted to pay duty somehow. If that be the case, Rule 25 is inapplicable. The relevant provision reads thus : Rule 25. Confiscation and penalty. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, if any producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X