2014 (3) TMI 450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ard both sides. A penalty of Rs. 9,93,558/- has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The facts of the case are that he appellant failed to pay their excise duty within 30 days of the due date and as per Rule 8(3A), they are required to pay duty for the future period through PLA without utilizing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... High Court in the case of CCE vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.). 3. On the other hand, the learned AR opposed the contention of the counsel and submits that as the appellant has contravened the provisions of Rule 8(3A), the same is covered by Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for imposing penalty, therefore the impugned order is to be upheld. 4. Considering .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X